Skip to main content

Full text of "Kirkstall Abbey 1147-1539: an historical study"

See other formats


¥, rorets 4 

an a 
2-2-2 o_O 3 o_O D-S--O_  e eO 
SSS 9-2-2 a- 0 s-S- o> Oa 

—>- o_o sao 
See md 
2-2-2-)-9-3- 2-2 D->_ Dae 
—— >_ oo > oo 
a eN 

<> SOD _ > O--O-- a- 2 

> 5-5-5 _2-)- a2 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
Thoresby Society 







Kirkstall Abbey from the south-east (1888) 

Godfrey Bingley Collection, University of Leeds 



GUY D. BARNES; B.A., M.Phil. 


© The Thoresby Society and Guy D. Barnes 

ISSN 0082-4232 



The Community at Barnoldswick 

Grants of Land, 11 §2-1260 
Land at Adel and Acquisitions in the Paynel Fee 
Other Land in the Leeds Area 
Land around Bessacar 
Some Implications of Land Tenure 
Grants of Land in the Later Period 

Granges and Lay-brothers 
ExploitationofLand .. 

Sheep-farming and the Production of Wool 
The Economy in 1288 a 
Changes in Agrarian Practice 

Financial Difficulties 

The Monastic Community 
Intellectual Activities 
The Abbey Buildings 

Relations with the King . 
Relations with the Patent 
Relations with other Cistercian Fioaees 
Relations with the Secular Church 
Relations with other Orders 
The Abbot and the outside World 




Economic Change 
The Surrender of the House 
The Fate of the Community 
The Lands of Kirkstall 

The Abbots of Kirkstall . . 



The Abbey’s Endowments at Barnoldswick 







A study of the history of Kirkstall Abbey was suggested to me a 
number of years ago by the late Professor John Le Patourel. At that 
time the works of Dom S. F. Hockey had not been written and no 
full history of a Cistercian house in England or in France had been 

This present work was first written as a thesis for the degree of 
Master of Philosophy in the University of Leeds under the 
supervision of Mr John Taylor. It was revised and prepared for 
publication by the Thoresby Society under the careful guidance of 
the honorary editors and of Mrs R. S. Mortimer, formerly joint 
honorary editor. 

Most of the previous writings about Kirkstall Abbey are to be 
found in Publications of the Thoresby Society. Nineteenth-century 
writers concerned themselves mainly with the editing and 
publication of source material. A late medieval account of the 
foundation, which nevertheless made use of earlier material, was 
edited, with a translation, by E. K. Clark and published in 1895 as 
‘The Foundation of Kirkstall Abbey’ (PTh.S, IV). The same year 
also saw the publication by the Society of “Charters relating to the 
Possessions of Kirkstall Abbey in Allerton’, edited by F. R. Kitson 
and Others, and of W.T. Lancaster's work, “Possessions of 
Kirkstall Abbey in Leeds’ (IV), while four years previously J. 
Stansfeld’s “A Rent-Roll of Kirkstall Abbey’ (II) had provided yet 
another valuable source for the study of the abbey’s land holdings. 
It was not until 1904, however, that the most important of all 
sources for the general history of the abbey — The Coucher Book of 
Kirkstall Abbey — was issued in an edition by W. T. Lancaster and 
WP Baildon (Vill)? Three years later, in 1007, W. Ht. St Jolin 
Hope’s and J. Bilson’s Architectural Description of Kirkstall Abbey 
appeared (XVI), providing a study in this area which still needs 
little to supplement it. 

here is then a gap of. nearly half-a century in the Society s 
publications about the abbey until Mr John Taylor edited The 
Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles (XLII); his introduction to this edition 
includes a valuable account of the abbey’s literary remains. 
Extensive excavations were carried out on the abbey site between 
1950 and 1964 of which an account has been published in three 
volumes (XLII, XLVIN and Ll). The late Professor Le Patourel 


included a short account of the abbey in a paper in which he looked 
at three medieval foundations in the city of Leeds — ‘Medieval 
Eeeds: Kirkstall Abbey, The Parish Chureh, Tie Medieval 
Borough’ (XLVI) -— and the same volume included a_ brief 
contribution by J. Sprittles on “New Grange, Kirkstall’. Most 
recently (LHD, R. A. Mott has written on ‘Kirkstall Forge and 
Monkish Iron-making’ and A. Lonsdale on “The Last Monks of 
Kirkstall Abbey’, the latter containing valuable material which 
throws light on the association between the last monks of the abbey 
and recusancy in Yorkshire. 

The earliest printed account of the abbey which has been traced is 
An Historical, Antiquarian and Picturesque Account of Kirkstall Abbey, 
published in London in 1827. The author is unknown but a 
manuscript note in one copy ascribes the authorship to Mr Wood 
‘at that time editor of the Leeds Intelligencer. The volume is 
‘embellished’ by engravings, which it was the author’s purpose to 
‘elucidate’, and includes an annotated ground plan of the abbey 

Many of the place-names which appear in the land charters of the 
abbey, from Armley and Bramley on the west side, northwards 
through Horsforth and Headingley, eastwards, through the many 
parts of Allerton, to Roundhay, are familiar now only as districts in 
the northern part of the city of Leeds. The expansion of the city in 
the last two centuries has seen the building of densely packed urban 
housing on most of the land which formed the abbey’s territorial 
endowment. Only patches of parkland, such as Beckett Park and 
Roundhay Park (both sites of former granges of the abbey), and the 
small remains of the once-extensive Hawksworth wood remind us 
of the agricultural basis of the abbey’s strength. When so many of 
its former possessions have become part of the city of Leeds it was 
indeed an appropriate and generous act when, in 1890, Colonel 
J. T. North purchased the abbey site and presented it to the city to 
be enjoyed by its citizens and by many others from beyond its 

In the preparation of this study I record my grateful thanks to the 
late Professor Le Patourel and to Mr John Taylor for support and 
encouragement over a number of years, and to Mrs Mortimer, Mrs 
W B.. Stephens <and Mrs P: S. Kirby for their patience: and 
meticulous guidance. 

The College of St Paul and St Mary G.D.B. 

July 1983 

The publication of this volume has 
been assisted by grants from the following: 

(Heavy Division, Kirkstall) 

(University of London) 


Help with publicity has been generously 
provided by 


To these bodies The Thoresby Society 

expresses its warm appreciation. 

Account 1539-40 


Calverley Charters 



Dugdale, MA 


Mem. Fountains 


PRO, S.C.6/Henry VIII/4590, Account 1539- 

‘Charters relating to the Possessions of Kirkstall 
Abbey~in Allerton’, ed’ F. R. Kitson and 
others, PTh.S, IV (1895), 42-59 and 81-116 

The Calverley Charters presented to the British 
Museum by Sir Walter Calverley Trevelyan, 
baronet, transcribed by S. Margerison and 
edited by W. P. Baildon and S. Margerison 
(PTS, 1) 1004) 

Statuta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Cister- 
ciensis ab anno 1116 ad annum 1786, ed. J. M. 
Canivez, Bibliothéque de la Revue d’Histoire 
Ecclesiastique, 8 vols (Louvain, 1933-41) 

The Coucher Book of the Cistercian Abbey of 

korksiall,. cd. W. 1. Lancaster and W. P. 
Baildon (PTh.S, VIII, 1904) 

Calendar of Close Rolls 

Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and 
Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII 

Calendar of Patent Rolls 

Bodleian Library, Dodsworth MSS 

W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. 
J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, 6 vols in 8 

English Historical Review 

Early Yorkshire Charters, vols I-III, ed. 
W. Farrer (1914-16); vols IV—XI, ed. C. T. 

Clay (1935-55), Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 
Record Series, Extra Series 

Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, 
Caio Walbram, |; Kame and |. i. Fowler, 
So, ell 1863); DX Vil (5878), CX XX (1918) 


Hope and Bilson 

Knowles, MO 
Knowles, RO 


Reg. Bowet and 

Reg. Corbridge 

Reg. Giffard 

Reg. Gray 

Reg. Greenfield 

Reg. Romeyn 



‘The Foundation of Kirkstall Abbey’, ed. E. K. 
Clark, PTh.S, IV (1895), 169-208 

W. H. St J. Hope and J. Bilson, Architectural 
Description of Kirkstall Abbey, (PTh.S, XVI, 

D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, 
2nd edn (Cambridge, 1966) 

D. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, 
3 vols (Cambridge, 1950-71) 

Public Record Office 
Publications of the Thoresby Society 

Documents relating to Diocesan and Provincial 
Visitations from the Registers of Henry Bowet, Lord 
Archbishop of York, 1407-23, and John Kempe, 
Lord Archbishop of York, 1425-52, SS, CXXVII 

The Register of Thomas of Corbridge, Lord 
Archbishop of York, 1300-04, ed. W. Brown, SS, 
CXXXVIII (1925) 

The Register of Walter Giffard, Lord Archbishop of 
York, 1266-79, ed. W. Brown, SS, CIX (1904) 

The Register, or Rolls, of Walter Gray, Lord 
Archbishop of York, ed. James Raine, jun., SS, 
LVI 372) 

The Register of William Greenfield, Lord 
Archbishop of York, 1306-15, transcribed and 
annotated by W. Brown, ed. A. Hamilton 
Thompson, 1, SS,.CXLV (roa1); WSs: 
CALIX (1934) SS; “CEI (reg6)e Vy ess. 
CLII (1938); V, SS, CLIT (1940) 

The Register of John le Romeyn [Romanus], Lord 
Archbishop of York, 1286-96, ed. W. Brown, I, 
55, CXXIIT (7913); Wy SS EX X VIN (1687) 

Surtees Society 

Victoria County History 


Cistercian Expansion and the 
Foundation of Kirkstall Abbey 

In the early twelfth century the north of England provided a 
promising field of growth for Cistercian monasticism. In the 
eleventh century the north had suffered from the invasions of the 
northmen and from the ‘harrying of the north’ of the Conqueror’s 
reign, but by the turn of the century it was beginning to recover. 
Under Archbishop Thomas of Bayeux, the first Norman 
archbishop of York, the great Benedictine houses had appeared — 
Selby (c.1070),' Whitby (c.1095) and the small cells derived from 
it, from one of which, at Lastingham, grew the great abbey of St 
Mary at York. The cathedral priory at Durham was established in 
1082-83, with its own family on the ancient sites of Lindisfarne, 
Jarrow and Monkwearmouth. Numerous alien priories were 
founded, of which two — Holy Trinity, York (1089) and Burstall 
in Holderness (1115) — were to have some significance in the 
history of Kirkstall. 

The second half of the eleventh century had been a period of 
church reform, when successive popes had tried to exclude lay 
influence from the church and to emphasise papal supremacy. 
Reform was again taking place in the Benedictine order, and new 
orders had been founded which sought a return to the simplicity of 
early monasticism and, in accordance with reforming ideas, the 
reduction of lay influence. They were supported by, and provided 
support for, the papacy. In the early years of the twelfth century 
the new orders began to arrive in England. The Austin Canons 
came to, Wexham in 1113, to Bridlington in the same year, to 
Nostell soon afterwards and to Guisborough in 1119. Embsay 
Priory, later to move to Bolton-in-Wharfedale, was founded in 
1121-22. The Cistercians came to England with the foundation of 
Waverley in 1128. 

A major revival of learning was in progress. In the north of 
England the school at York, which dates from the earliest days of 
Christianity in England, had been refounded by Archbishop 
Thomas of Bayeux. There ‘a decent education could no doubt be 

‘All dates of monastic foundations in this chapter are taken from D. Knowles and 
R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses (1953). 


obtained’.* Schools also existed at Beverley and Pontefract.’ This 
was also a time of growing trade. York itself enjoyed the highly 
valued privilege of being quit of toll not only in England, but also 
in the king’s overseas possessions,* and German merchants are 
known to have been in York in the early years of the twelfth 
century.’ Finally, in Archbishop Thurstan of York, northern 
England had a religious leader “who might be expected to welcome 
the new monasticism and to give his somewhat impulsive 
enthusiasm free reign in patronising its expansion’.® 

The year 1132 saw the foundation of Rievaulx and Fountains: the 
former, a daughter-house of Clairvaux, in whose welfare St 
Bernard himself showed a deep concern, became a centre of 
sanctity under Ailred, most famous of English Cistercian abbots; 
the latter began in circumstances of the utmost. poverty as a 
secession of monks from the wealthy Benedictine abbey of St Mary 
at York,’ 

The two Cistercian abbeys soon began to found daughter-houses 
of their own: Rievaulx at Warden in Bedfordshire (1135), Revesby 
in Lincolnshire (1142), when Ailred himself led the colonising 
monks, and at Rufford in Nottinghamshire (1146). Equally 
prolific, Fountains sent out new communities in 1139 to 
Haverholm and Kirkstead in Lincolnshire and Newminster in 
Northumberland. Her last foundations took place in 1147 when 
parties of monks left the mother-house for Bytham in Lincolnshire 
and for the Yorkshire village of Barnoldswick. Newminster herself 
later colonised Roche (1147) and Sawley (1148). 

Following a decision of the general chapter in 1147, Savignac 
houses were absorbed into the Cistercian order.* This added three 
new houses to the groups of northern Cistercian monasteries — 
Furness, and its daughter-houses, Swineshead (Lincolnshire) and 
Byland (Yorkshire). 

Holme Cultram, Cumberland, was founded from Rievaulx’s 
daughter-house at Melrose in 1150 and in the same year Byland 
sent a community to Fors, which moved to Jervaulx in 1156. In 
1152 the Cistercian general chapter forbade further foundations, 
but the decree does not seem to have been effective in England until 

°A. L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1955), p.233. 
3A. F. Leach, Schools of Medieval England (1915), pp.114-15. 

“Poole, p: 75: 


°D. Knowles, MO, p.230. 

7Ibid., but see also D. Nicholl, Thurstan, Archbishop of York, 1114-40 (York, 1964). 
*Knowles, MO, p.251. 


after 1153, the year in which Poulton in Cheshire (Dieulacres from 
1214) was founded from the former Savignac house of Comber- 
mere. This foundation marks the end of the great period of 
Cistercian expansion in northern England. 

Such vitality would have been remarkable at any time. What 
seems to have attracted less attention than it deserves is the fact that 
this period of expansion coincided almost exactly with a period of 
intense unrest, associated, as far as the north of England was 
concerned, with three closely linked factors — the ‘anarchy’ of 
Stephen’s reign, the ambitions, in Lancashire and Lincolnshire 
especially, of Ranulf, earl of Chester, and the presence at the same 
time of a powerful and unscrupulous ruler on the Scottish throne in 
the person of David I. To the Cistercian struggle with nature, to 
which they were accustomed, was therefore added the danger to 
life and property from prolonged and often bitter warfare, a danger 
of which at least two houses, Newminster and Calder, and possibly 
others, had direct experience. 

The year 1153, in which the general chapter’s order forbidding 
further foundations took effect in England, also marks in other 
ways the end of this era. In this year was signed the treaty between 
Stephen and Henry of Anjou which ended the years of ‘anarchy’; 
David I died and was succeeded by the much less compelling figure 
of Malcolm IV, and William FitzDuncan probably died in the same 
year. FitzDuncan, nephew of David I, who had interests in Craven 
through his marriage, had fought against Ilbert de Lacy in the 
Battle of the Standard and perhaps had a personal feud with the de 
Lacy family. He had led a raid by Scottish troops as far south as 

Of the effects of these disorders on Cistercian expansion in 
northern England little definite can be said, except that expansion 
was clearly not held up. It does seem possible, however, that these 
disorders had some influence on the territorial direction taken by 
this expansion. It is noticeable that no new foundations took place 
in Yorkshire for eight years after the terrible experiences of 1138-39 
when the Scots and their allies penetrated southwards on both sides 
of the Pennines, when the monasteries of Newmiunster and Calder 
were destroyed and the most ruthless atrocities were perpetrated. '° 
The scarcity of religious houses in Lancashire may be explained by 
the instability of political conditions there during most of this 
period of rapid expansion by the new orders. Constant danger and 

*Poole, p.271 and n. 
'° Ibid., pp.270-71. 


occasional interference must have added to the difficulties which 
most northern Cistercian houses experienced in their early years, 
but that they survived at all shows that civilian life and progress 
were not altogether suspended in the days of anarchy and that only 
a few districts in England were seriously affected. 

It has been argued that the Cistercian order was strongly 
supported by the barons in this period because the Cistercians, as an 
order which had grown out of the reform movement of the 
previous century, had close connections with the Holy See and 
therefore ‘implicitly supported the barons in their opposition to 
royal authority’.'' The numerous white monk houses of the north 
and west were seen as ‘the strongholds of the semi-autonomous 
barons of Stephen’s reign’! and as the expression of baronial 
opposition to Stephen. If this was so it is not surprising that serious 
political disorder and Cistercian expansion came to an end 

The Community at Barnoldswick 

Kirkstall Abbey was founded 1n 1147, a year which marks the peak 
of the period of Cistercian expansion described above.'} The basis 
of any account of its foundation must be the Fundacio Abbathie de 
Kyrkestall, written perhaps by Hugh, a monk of Kirkstall, in the 
early thirteenth century.'* Henry de Lacy, in penitence to God 
during an illness, gave land at Barnoldswick to the abbot of 
Fountains to found a new abbey of the Cistercian order. The land 
was held by Henry of Hugh Bigod, earl of Norfolk, for an annual 
payment of five marks and a yearling hawk, but the rent had been 
long in arrears. 

The land probably included Barnoldswick and the vills adjacent 
—Brogden, Coates (the ‘Elfwynetrop’ of the Fundacio), and 
Salterforth. There was a parish church at Barnoldswick, ‘very 
ancient and founded long before’, with dependent chapels at 
Bracewell and East Marton,'’ but these villages were probably not 
included in Henry de Lacy’s donation. 

''B. D. Hill, English Cistercian Monasteries and their Patrons in the Twelfth Century 
(Urbana, 1968), p.38. 


'’The year 1147 saw the foundation of Dore, Vaudey, Bittlesden, Roche, Sawtry 
and Margam as well as Kirkstall. 

‘4 The printed version in PTh.S, 1V, comprises a complete transcript and translation. 

'’ The Norman work at both Bracewell and East Marton may well be the remains of 
these early buildings. 


The abbot of Fountains sent Alexander, his prior (and one of the 
thirteen monks who had left St Mary’s, York, to found Fountains), 
with twelve monks and ten lay-brothers to found the new house, 
which like several other Cistercian houses was given the name 
Mount St Mary. 

When the monks took possession of the site the inhabitants of the 
vills were removed. This action was by no means unique in 
Cistercian foundations but was perhaps more thorough at 
Barnoldswick, for when the people came back regularly to worship 
at their church they were seen as a nuisance ‘to the monastery and 
to the brethren there residing’ and, in spite of their protests, the 
church was pulled down ‘to its foundations’. For this the rector 
charged the monks before the archbishop, the Cistercian Henry 
Murdac, and appeal was made to the pope, also a Cistercian, but 
without success. 

The monks’ stay at Barnoldswick was neither long nor happy. 
They complained of interference by ‘freebooters’ and when a 
particularly wet season ruined their crops they began to consider 
the possibility of a change of site, again a not uncommon 
occurrence among Cistercian houses. 

The Fundacio gives these two reasons for the monks’ decision to 
seek a new site, and they may well have been true. Their land was 
precariously situated considering the disorders of the time. At the 
north-east end, at Bracewell and Marton, it adjoined the honour of 
Skipton, held by William FitzDuncan the Scot, and confirmed to 
him by King David in 1151.'° FitzDuncan and the de Lacys had 
fought on opposite sides in the Battle of the Standard and it has 
been suggested that there was a personal feud between them.'” It is 
not impossible therefore that the freebooters were Scots, but it 
would be surprising if lawlessness did not flourish generally in the 
conditions of the time. 

The dampness of the climate may well have been an added reason 
for moving. The experience of the monks at Fors and Sawley, only 
about five miles from Barnoldswick and almost exactly contem- 
porary, was similar.'* A modern historian of climatic changes has 
concluded that the winter of 1148-49 was particularly severe and 
that that of 1151-52 was notable for wet periods.'® 

EMG, Vilxito 

# Poole; pp.270-72; 271n. 

VG Yoreswire, Ul,ed. W. Page (1013), pp-140, 156. 

"°C. E. Britton, A Meteorological Chronology to 1450, Meteorological Office, 
Geophysical Memoirs, 70 (1937), 62-63. 



But even if we accept the reasons given by the monks for their 
move they do not tell the whole story. There can be little doubt 
that the intrusion of the Cistercians imto this: border: areacot 
Lancashire and Yorkshire was bitterly resented by <the local 
inhabitants. As’ we. have seen, the evicted, villacers. of 
Barnoldswick returned regularly to their church to worship and 
carried their complaint about its destruction to the papacy itself. 
At Accrington, under Abbot Lambert, the grange was burnt and 
three of the lay-brothers murdered,*° following the eviction of 
the inhabitants. At Cliviger Richard of Eland, lord of the manor 
of Rochdale, proceeded successfully against the monks for their 
occupation of land which had been the gift of Robert de Lacy.?! 
The editor of the Coucher Book has remarked with apparent 
surprise’? that no. further grants of land to the-camonke tat 
Barnoldswick have been traced. It could well be, in these 
circumstances, that no other land “was ‘granted to them there. 
Perhaps, therefore, the abbot’s decision to seek a new site was a 
wise one. 

It has been argued*} that the foundation gifts of Cistercian 
monasteries were usually of this somewhat ungenerous kind; that 
patrons founded Cistercian houses in their own interest and at 
minimal cost to themselves; and examples can be shown from 
many Midlands houses of meagre donations of unproductive 
land... Set sagainst many ofthese, Henry de. Lacy’s:. gramt at 
Barnoldswick was not ungenerous, at least in extent. ‘The 
seemingly generous donations were often, if not always, land 
which the founder valued least among his possessions, and often 

land labouring under some kind of legal disability which 
would severely tax the resources of an obscure and struggling 
monastery.’*4 The latter was true of Barnoldswick. Its tenure 
was by no means secure, for de Lacy held it of Hugh Bigod, earl 
of Norfolk, by a rent which had been long in arrears and for 
which the earl later tried to evict the community.” In defence of 
de Lacy it has been argued’? that if his grants to religious houses 
were not generous it was ‘probably because he had the task of 

° Fundacio, p.184. 

*" Ibid. 

“CB, pp.X-XI. 

3 Hill, pp.48-53. 

*4 Ibid. 

*s Fundacio, p.180. 

*°W. E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194 
(Oxford, 1966), p.42. 


building up the honour once again after the disasters of Stephen’s 
reign and had to sort out the complications left from the period of his 
father’s banishment’. 
Abbot Alexander is said to have discovered the present site at 
Kirkstall when out on the business of his house. It was occupied by 
hermits,*? but by persuading some of the hermits of the dangers of 
their way of life, by offering others gifts of money, and through the 
influence of Henry de Lacy with William de Peitevin, who held the 
land of him, the monks gained possession. The date 19 May 1152, the 
anniversary of their departure from Fountains in 1147, was chosen as 
the formal date of the removal to the new site. 
It is possible to gain some idea of the topography of the new site 
from an estate map made in 1711 for the earl of Cardigan.** This is 
clearly along time after the monks moved there, butit still gives some 
idea of the district before it was over-run by the expansion of Leeds. 
Any idea of being ‘remote from the habitation of men’ would now 
seem to bea wholly inappropriate description of the Kirkstall site, but 
there must have been some seclusion therein the mid-twelfth century. 
The site was bounded on the south side by the river Aire and backed on 
the west by the great wood of Hawksworth, now almost entirely 
replaced by a large housing estate, but, even at the end of the abbey’s 
history, still estimated at 800 acres’? and its clearance only just 
beginning. About a mile and a half south-eastward was the small 
settlement of Burley, grouped around Burley Green, still an open 
space immediately west of the present Burley Recreation Ground. 
About the same distance east of the site lay East Headingley, the 
outline of its green perhaps still marked by North Lane and St 
Michael’s Lane. Again at about the same distance north of the site lay 
West Headingley, the distinction between the two Headingleys made 
by the charters of the early endowments? still clearly visible on the 
eighteenth-century estate map. The river could be crossed by the ford 
at Horsforth, near the present Newlay Bridge, at the western end of 
Hawksworth Wood.?! 
With the Fundacio account of the moving of the community to 
Kirkstall and the foundation of the abbey there should be read Henry 
de Lacy’s charter3* confirming his own and other early grants to the 
77It is ‘not beyond the bounds of possibility’ that a building found under the 
infirmary during the excavations of 1964 ‘was erected not by the monks but by the 
so-called hermits’. Kirkstall Abbey Excavations, 1960-64 (PTh.S, LI, 1967), p.36. 

*® Northamptonshire Record Office, Brudenell Map 41. 

79 Account 1539-40. 

Ese ODP S57. 

31 CB, p.63, dating from Abbot Alexander’s lifetime. 

2 CB. p50. 


abbey. In spite of the reservations of the editor of the Coucher Book®} 
there seems to be sufficient reason for regarding this as the foundation 
charter. It was placed first in the book by the original compiler only a 
little more than halfa century after the gifts which it records; since the 
charter is in the form of a writ and records events which were in the 
past at the time of writing, the objection that it 1s ‘little if anything 
more than a confirmation’ 1s invalid. This is just what would be 
expected ofa foundation charter in this form.*4 As was customary, the 
charter concludes with suitably solemn words, ‘I moreover pray and 
command all my men that they love, honour and support this place 
and its inhabitants and all its appurtenances’. The list of witnesses 
includes twenty-five of Henry’s tenants or followers, so that the 
words ‘command all my men’ would have great significance in this 
context. The only other witness was Henry, archbishop of York, and 
this enables the charter to be fairly closely dated, for Henry Murdac 
died on 14 October 1153. 

Galbraith has argued?° that the foundation of a monastery took a 
long time?’ and that only after perhaps further grants beyond the 
initial endowment had been made and the church, or part of it, was 
ready for dedication would the intention of the founder be felt to have 
been fully realised. Then only would the ‘whole complicated process 
of foundation be recorded in writing, perhaps at the dedication of the 
church’.3* The presence of the archbishop and of Henry de Lacy and 
so many of his men makes one wonder whether the charter under 
consideration was not issued on just such an occasion. 

The dating of these events in the Fundacio can now be examined. 
The relevant passages are as follows: 

.. . in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord one thousand, one 
hundred and forty-seven, there was ordained abbot of the same 
place the venerable man the lord Alexander, prior of Fountains, 

se Gilby aera 

34See V. H. Galbraith, ‘Monastic Foundation Charters of the Eleventh and Twelfth 
Centuries’, Cambridge Historical Journal, IV (1934), 205-22. 

3’The charter of confirmation by Robert de Lacy ends with similar words (CB, 
p.51), and that by Roger with similar but even more high-sounding and emphatic 
words (CB, p. 54). 

s@ Galbraith, p. 214: 

7The foundations of a building which may possibly have provided temporary 
quarters for the monks who lived on the site while permanent buildings were 
being erected were discovered under the infirmary during the excavations of 1964, 
Kirkstall Abbey Excavations, 1960-64, p.36. 

38 William, earl of Albemarle, confirmed to the monks of Aumale ‘all the donations 
which my predecessors faithfully made to the said church from the beginning of its 
construction’ [my italics], EYC, Ill, 35. 


who on this very day, namely May 18, was despatched from the 
abbey of Fountains with twelve monks and ten lay brothers to the 
mew apbey.. 7 

. . . For six years and more they remained there in unbroken 
poverty i. ; 

a. gla the year of our Loxd’s Incarmation,1152, Kine Stephen 
reigning over England, archbishop Roger presiding over the see 
of York, on May 19th. . . came the convent of monks from their 
first seat . . . to the place which is now called Kirkstall.’ 

An examination of the charter above has suggested that the 
process of foundation was complete before the death of Henry 
Murdac in October 1153. The reference to Archbishop Roger, 
therefore, is clearly in error. With that exception it does not seem 
necessary to amend the Fundacio account. Stephen was king until 
October 1154. The terminus ad quem is the death of Henry Murdac. 
Six years could have elapsed between the departure from Fountains 
in 1147 and the dedication of the church, which perhaps marked the 
completion of the process of foundation. 

We tecessary acceptance of an early date for Henry de Lacy s 
charter makes it probable that negotiations leading to the further 
grants of land included in it were going on while the community 
was still at Barnoldswick. This would be in agreement with the 
Fundacio account, which records the negotiations with William de 
Peiteyin for the site and even the building of the church and 
‘humble offices’ before it records the move from Barnoldswick.” 

The coincidence of the date of the two migrations, from 
Fountains and from Barnoldswick, will have been noted. If the 
move to Kirkstall took a long time and if the monks wanted to 
choose a date on which formally to commemorate it, what date 
would be more suitable than the anniversary of the first foundation 
of their house? 

The land which the monks occupied at Kirkstall was granted to 
them by William de Peitevin, who held it of Henry de Lacy at 
Headingley.*3 The Fundacio account is careful to point out* that the 
grant was made at Henry’s suggestion and even persuasion. The 
writer seems anxious to stress Henry’s services to the monks, 

39 Fundacio, p.174. 

4° Fundacio, p.176. 

4! Fundacio, p.179. 

* Fyundacio, pp.178-79. 

43 The land was held by William of Robert de Peitevin. The relationship is precisely 
expressed in Robert’s confirmation of the grant by ‘Dominus meus Henricus de 
Laci’ and ‘Willelmus Pictavensis miles meus’. CB, p.56. 

44 Fundacio, p.178. 


which in the matter of territorial endowment at least were less 
significant than the account suggests, so that William’s share in 
the transaction may have been somewhat greater than is shown 
in the Fundacio. This impression 1s strengthened by the fact that 
while it was usual for a monastery to base its seal on its 
Founder’s coat of arms, Kirkstall’s seal was based on the arms of 
Wilhami de Peitevin,* 

The monks did not experience the same hostility at Kirkstall as 
they had found at Barnoldswick. Endowments flowed in quickly 
once the move had been completed; probably, as has been seen, 
they had begun even before the move. It may have been the 
promise of such endowments that had finally persuaded them to 

In every part of the de Lacy fee where the abbey’s estates were 
eventually located the establishment of the abbey’s territorial 
endowment was initiated by Henry de Lacy’s immediate tenants. 
His appeal at the dedication of the church had not been in vain. 
Even if the writer of the Fundacio is guilty of some exaggeration 
in his mention of Henry’s own gifts it is nevertheless likely that 
many of the gifts made by his tenants were made at Henry’s 
suggestion and that the abbey owed its greater security in some 
measure to his closer proximity. 

The Fundacio lists the areas in which land was acquired under 
the first abbot, 1147-82.4° All such grants after the move to 
Kirkstall can be confitmed “by ‘clarter evidence.” Farct 
Barnoldswyck with Elfwynthrop and Brogden with its 
appurtenances. In Cliviger one carucate of land with its 
appurtenances*’ and pastures for horses and herds very plentiful. 
Oldfield,#® Cookridge,4® Brearey,*° Horsforth,*' Allerton,>? 
Roundhay,*} Thorpe,*4 a messuage in York,*°’ Hooton*® and 

5°A Rent-Roll of Kirkstall Abbey’, ed. J: Stansfeld, PIS, WM (2800), 17. The 
seal is illustrated in plate I, fig.1, facing p.17. 

4° Fundacio, p.18T. 

ER. (003. 

CB, p. 179: 

*°The monks already held land in Cookridge when land was granted to them by 
Wilham Payne! im 1172, EYC, V1, 240. 

CB. p.82: 

‘'CB, p.71, no.xciv, is pre-1172, but there were several early grants in Horsforth. 

*The early grant by Samson de Allerton was confirmed in Henry de Lacy’s 
foundation charter, CB, p.51. 

‘Confirmed m2 charter by Henry I, CB, p.214- 

‘4 Bishopthorpe, York, also confirmed by Henry II, CB, p.214. 

bid. CB, paLas: 

*°The renunciation of the land by Abbot Elias is recorded in CB, p.9. 


Bessacar’”? with two granges neighbouring to the abbey.’** Early 
granges are known in all these places except Thorpe and York. 

Construction of the church was almost certainly begun while the 
monks were still at Barnoldswick. The buildings surrounding the 
cloister were also begun early and their construction was complete 
by the end of the abbacy of Alexander. The architects who have 
examined the abbey ruins find no reason to doubt the statement of 
the Fundacde that the church and either dormitory. . -either 
refectory, the cloister and the chapter and other offices necessary 
within the abbey’ were built during this period.*® Following early 
Cistercian practice the monks’ refectory was originally built lying 
east-west and not north-south, as it at present appears. The original 
arrangement of the windows and doorways can still be seen.© The 
lay-brothers’ refectory was situated at the southern end of the 
cellarium, adjoining the kitchen.” 

According to the Fundacio™® the buildings were partly provided 
by Henry de Lacy, who laid ‘with his own hand the foundations of 
the church and himself completed the whole fabric at his own cost’. 
The Latin makes clear, which the editor’s translation does not, that 
the reference is to the whole of the church and not to the whole of 
the monastery.°} In completing the latter the abbey ran heavily into 
debt, for when Aaron, the Jew of Lincoln, died in 1186, Kirkstall, 
together with eight other Cistercian abbeys, owed him 6,400 

The death of the first abbot in 1182 provides a convenient point 
at which to summarise the early progress of the abbey. The 
community had survived the five difficult years at Barnoldswick 
and had secured a settlement on a new and distant site. The most 
important of its buildings, much of which remains to this day, had 
been erected in a most worthy manner, the foundations of its 
territorial endowment had been laid and the all-important grange 
system developed. By 1182 the abbey had gained a firm foothold in 
all the areas where its great estates were later to be developed. 

‘7 Dodsworth, VIII, f.74, printed in CB, p.156, n.3, and confirmed by Henry I], see 
Dugdale, MA, V, 535. 

*’Probably New Grange, the site of which is now Beckett Park, and Bar Grange, 
near the river at Burley. 

°° Fundacio, p.181. Fora full description of the abbey buildings, see Hope and Bilson. 

°° Hope and Bilson, p.52. 

* [bid ps: 

° Fundacio, p.180. 

°3°Totam Ecclesie fabricam . . . consummavit’, Fundacio, p.180. 

°4J. Jacobs, The Jews of Angevin England (1893), p.108. 

The Abbey’s Lands and Benefactors 

It was essential for the survival of a monastery that an adequate 
endowment in land should be built up and satisfactorily exploited. 
This was especially important for the Cistercians as they had, by 
the terms of their foundation, denied themselves sources of income 
which the Benedictines, for example, had been ready to accept. 
Undoubtedly the main reason why the Kirkstall community had 
decided to move from Barnoldswick was its failure significantly to 
increase its original endowment in that area and, because of poor 
weather and outside interference, its inability fully to exploit it. 
The basic reason for its greater success at Kirkstall must be the 
rapid growth of an adequate territorial endowment, no doubt made 
possible by the closer’ proximity “ef the -de Lacys-<andiwthe 
encouragement which they clearly gave to their tenants to support 
the new foundation. On the de Lacy lands in the Leeds area almost 
all the immediate sub-tenants became benefactors of the abbey. 

It will be the purpose of this chapter briefly to review the growth 
and location of that territorial endowment and the most important 
contributors to 1t and then to look, in more detail, at some 
important implications for the community of land tenure during 
the period. The exploitation of that land will be the concern of a 
later chapter. Owing to the varied and often imprecise formulae 
used in the documents to describe grants of land no attempt can be 
made to assess the total extent of the endowment. 


The land at Barnoldswick is of particular interest, not only as the 
site on which the abbey was founded, but also as an example of one 
of the rare occasions when an area of monastic land can be marked 
on a map with some degree of precision. Following a dispute with 
Hugh Bigod about the Barnoldswick land Henry de Lacy 
petitioned Henry II for confirmation of his grant to the monks and 
in the document’ defined the boundaries between the monks’ land 
and his forest of Blackburnshire. The study of West Riding 
place-names by A. H. Smith’ and the work of W. Farrer} enable the 
landmarks provided in the description to be identified with some 

“CB, p.189. 

7A. H. Smith, The Place-names of the West Riding of Yorkshire, Publications of the 
English Place-name Society, XXX-XXXVII (Cambridge, 1961-63). 

SBYC, |. so7n. 


confidence. On the north side the monks’ land marched, not with 
Henry de Lacy’s forest, but with lands of the honour of Skipton. 
The boundaries of the original grant were thus described: 

... per rivum qui vocatur Blakebroc, et ita sursum ultra moram 
in directum usque ad Gailmers et ita in directum usque capud de 
Clessaghe, et in transversum montem qui vocatur Blacho et ita 
usque ad Oxegile, et ita per Oxgile sursum usque ad Pikedelawe 

ul vocatur Alainesete et de Pikedelawe usque ad antiquum 
eae inter Midhop et Colredene.* 

When he re-granted the land, Hugh Bigod referred to 

Totam terram de Bernolfwic cum Elfwinetrop et omnibus altis 
appendiciis suis.° 

A. H. Smith regards Elfwinetrop as possibly the early name for 
the part of Barnoldswick which became known as Coates,° a 
secondary settlement slightly to the north-east of the town. All the 
other names mentioned above Smith regards as field-names in the 
townships of Barnoldswick and Brogden. Some of these can be 
identified. Blakebroc may be the stream known as the County 
Brook, about three miles south of Barnoldswick on the county 
boundary. The hill of Blacho, now Blacko, 1s easily found; Midhop 
has become Middop and Colredene may be the modern Coverdale. 
Farrer identified Oxgill with the valley which runs northward 
between Weethead (Wheathead) and Burn Moor, now followed by 
part of the county boundary, and Pikedelawe, or Alainsete, with 
tie tnieh hill (1,253 feet) at the morthern end of that-valley.7 The 
boundary on the north side would be that between Bracewell to the 
north of it and Brogden and Barnoldswick to the south. 

An attempt can now be made to define the area covered by 
Henry de Lacy’s grant. The boundary should run north and east of 
Coates and must link the places referred to in Henry’s description. 
The resulting area is shown on the map (p.14) where parish and 
township boundaries have been used to link the points identified. * 

Very early in the abbey’s history the parish of Barnoldswick, 
which had included the ‘four parochial vills’ of Brogden, Brace- 
well, Elfwinetrop and the two Martons, was divided.’ Bracewell 
[OD pp: 189-90. 
7B, p. 188: 
°Smith, Place-names of the West Riding, XX XV (1961), 35-36. 

TLE YVCol,. SO7n. 

’For a different view see R. A. Donkin, ‘Settlement and Depopulation on Cistercian 
Estates during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, Bulletin of the Institute of 
Historical Research, XX XIII (1960), 141-65. 

°Zouche Chapel MS (Dean and Chapter of York), P 1 (2) 1, printed in EYC, III, 


YY ‘Thornton 

R h/ 

Y fKelbrook 

Height in feet 


eee ce ee 0 eee Boundary of original endowment Reservoirs 

The Abbey’s Endowments at Barnoldswick 


and the two Martons became separate parishes, Kirkstall retaining 
the right of presentation to the two livings. The award was made 
by Archbishop Henry Murdac, who died in 1153. Since the monks 
are rererred to throughout this rather long document -as ‘of 
Kirkstall’ it seems likely that the date 1152-53 should be given for 
the division of the parish. 

Grants of Land, 1152-1260 

In the area around Leeds, where the estates of the abbey were to be 
mainly located, the greatest landholder among the tenants-in-chief 
was the abbey’s founder, Henry de Lacy. Once settled in Kirkstall 
the first abbot, with Henry’s support, was very successful in 
attracting donations to his house, and in a number of families 
support of the abbey continued through several generations. 

Although Henry II’s charter of confirmation’® refers to ‘that 
place of Kirkstall which they have by the gift of Henry de Lacy’ the 
abbey site was in fact in William de Peitevin’s fee, and the writer of 
the Fundacio describes the position more precisely when he writes 
that William ‘at the instance of Henry’" conferred the land on the 
monks. The same charter includes Henry de Lacy’s own grant of 
cow-pasture known as Brackenley where Roundhay grange was 
later established. William de Peitevin added half a carucate in East 
and four carucates in West Headingley, perhaps the land which 
became New Grange and Moor Grange. 

The link with the de Peitevin family continued until the 
fourteenth century when, in 1324, Thomas died without heirs and 
the whole of the manor of Headingley was granted to the abbey, '” 
which held it until the Dissolution. 

Another family whose members had a long association with the 
abbey was that of Samson de Allerton. Samson’s grant of land in 
Allerton, probably the district now known as Chapel Allerton, was 
among those confirmed by Henry de Lacy. Further grants were 
made until, early in the next century, ‘all Allerton’ was conveyed to 
the abbey by Adam, Samson’s grandson. A grange was established 
there at an early date.'} Meanwood was granted to the abbey about 
1280 by William, son of Alexander, a tenant of the de Allerton 
family; Moor Allerton was granted about 1280 and there were later 

2CB Ap.204. 

'' Fundacio, p.178. 

Calverley Charters, p.161. This account very much simplifies a long and complex 
story, ibid., pp.184, 196, 212. For the long court case by which Alexander de 
Peitevin tried unsuccessfully to recover the land, see CB, pp.304—10. 

TGR Pp. 51, LOO; 105, 


grants in Lofthouse, Potternewton' and in Allerton Gledhow 
during the fourteenth century. It 1s in Allerton that the abbey’s 
holdings seem to have become most closely linked with tenants at 
all levels and where benefactions 1n any number continued longest. 

Henry de Lacy’s tenant in Bramley was William de Reinville 
who was one of his most important barons. His son, Adam, was 
seneschal at Pontefract while Henry was away on the crusade on 
which he lost his life, and served both Henry’s son and grandson.’ 
William’s son, another William, added a piece of land which 
appears to have stretched along the south bank of the Aire opposite 
the abbey site from where Newlay Bridge now stands eastward to 
the point where a road from Armley reached the river.'° The real 
expansion of the abbey’s estates in Bramley took place during the 
first half of the next century through gifts by later members of the 
de Reinville family’? and by the de Stapletons, their relations by 
marriage.'* To solve his financial problems Robert de Stapleton 
eventually sold his holding to the abbey’? so that the abbey then 
held all Bramley and Armley. This is one of only two cases of the 
purchase of land by the abbey which have been noted.*° 

Land in Seacroft was held by William Somerville, another of de 
Lacy’s more notable tenants. His family had held land of Ilbert de 
Lacy when the Domesday Survey was made; they had links with 
the Scottish royal family, and William and his son were frequently 
among the witnesses to charters of David of Scotland. Soon after 
1166 began the series of charters which conveyed nearly 100 acres 
of land to the abbey.”' His son added valuable mineral rights. *? 

De Lacy’s other tenant in Seacroft was Henry Wallis, whose 
family, like that of William de Reinville, held office in de Lacy’s 
household,*?} but his grants were less extensive than those of the 

Land was granted in Shadwell by yet another of de Lacy’s 
knights, Herbert de Arches, and by his brother, mother-in-law and 
brother, Richard.?5 

“Chatters, Allerton’, pp.40, 52, 47. 
‘Wightman, The Lacy Family, pp.103-05. 
~CB, p.62 and n. 

ED. Pp 250, 257, 250. 200. 

'SCB, p.261; Bodleian Library, MS Top., Yorkshire e.2 (Watson MSS), f.50. 
CD, pp,203, 204. 

“See also Charters, Allerton’, p:58. 
“CB, pp. 121-26: 

2 Dodsworth, VIII, f.58. 

2 EYC, Ill, 233. 

FOB. pp: $i) bLO=21. 

CBP p.133=35. 


All this land in Roundhay, Seacroft and Shadwell was lost to the 
abbey in 1281 in return for an annual payment, in a settlement 
made by the earl of Lincoln which was intended to help the abbey 
out of serious financial difficulties.”° 

Expansion southwards was effectively sealed off by the lands of 
Temple Newsam. Grants to the abbey of land in Austhorpe and 
Osmondthorpe*’? made the Templars close neighbours. 

The monks received a number of small and scattered grants of 
land to the south-west of their main areas of endowment, near 
Morley and towards Bradford. There were grants in Morley and 
Beeston by the de Beeston family?® in the twelfth and mid- 
thirteenth centuries, in Pudsey and Calverley”? and in Bolling and 
Newhall, where the abbey had a sheepfold.3° 

Henry de Lacy’s caput honoris was at Pontefract and in that area 
also and in spite of the proximity of other religious houses at 
Pontefract, Nostell and Monk Bretton, his tenants granted land to 
the abbey. Roger de Ledeston and Emma de Toulouse gave land in 
the fields of Pontefract itself; Hugh de Snydale, son of de Lacy’s 
tenant of 1166 granted three and a half acres, and William 
Fitzgerald, who held one-third of a knight’s fee in 1166, gave three 
acres.3' Hugh de Toulston gave land between Ackton and Snydale 
and later one carucate in Loscoe, with access to the grange which 
had been established at Snydale.?* The largest grant in Snydale was, 
however, made by Roger de Lacy, who, in confirming the grant of 
a house by his father, added three carucates of land, or half the 
Domesday assessment.33 The de Stapleton family, who granted 
land in Bramley, also made grants in their own village of Stapleton, 
and Alan de Smeaton gave four acres at Smeaton: ** 

The most distant of the abbey’s possessions were those in the de 
Lacy fee near to the Lancashire-Yorkshire border. The earliest, 
dating from the time of the first abbot, was at Cliviger,?5 south of 
Burnley, where a grange was established. There is some confusion 
about the tenure of this land. Abbot Lambert 1s said to have given it 
up,?° but the abbey still held land in Cliviger when Henry de Lacy 
6 See below, pp.43-44. 

Gis pearl Ve. 1 34: 

CB, pp.245-46. 

“Wusdale, sia, WV. S40, 543) 
Cb. pp.073,. 070, 244). 

2 CB, ppals2—53.. 

CB, pp. 148-49, 150: 


CB, PP-155,,.154. 
indaao, p.1s1, contirmed by Robert de Lacy, CB, p.202. 
8° Fundacio, p.196. 


helped the abbey out of its financial difficulties in 1287.37 The land at 
Cliviger was said to have been given in exchange for the vill of 
Accrington, from which the inhabitants had been evicted. They 
returned, however, burnt the grange and killed the lay-brothers.3* 
With Robert de Lacy’s help peace was restored and the grange was 
held until 1287. 

Other endowments were centred on Riston, or Rushton, fifteen 
miles NNW of Accrington and across the Yorkshire border in the 
district of Bowland. The grant was augmented by John de Lacy intwo 
stages}? and was held by the monks until the dissolution. 

Land at Adel and Acquisitions in the Paynel Fee 

Adel was not part of the de Lacy fee, but was held in chief by William 
Paynel and had once been part of a great honour which, before 
sub-division, had stretched into six counties in the north, midlands 
and south-west of England.*° A convenient summary of lands held in 
Adel in 1198 is provided by a tithe agreement concluded in that year 
between the abbey and the church of Adel.+' Land in Cookridge, 
Brearey, and East and West Burdon are all referred to. 

The earliest grants were those in Cookridge and Brearey, referred 
toin the list oflands acquired under the first abbot, * who died in 1182. 
The Cookridge grant was by Paynel himself, but it is clear that the 
land was already held by the monks of Adam, one of Paynel’s tenants 
and Paynel’s grant included the homage and service of Adam and his 
family.*8 Soon afterwards and probably before 1174, Roger Mustel, 
whose associations are with Lincolnshire** and whose appearance in 
Yorkshire cannot be satisfactorily explained, extended this to the 
whole of Cookridge.45 The grant at Brearey was by Robert de 
Brearey, and one of the early granges was established there. 

The whole of the vill of Adel was granted in 1204 by William 
Mustel, Roger’s son,#° and this led to a dispute with Holy Trinity 
Priory; York, “to- whom the church had been granted <om atts 
re-foundation at the end of the eleventh century. The dispute lasted 

7 Fundacio, pp.184—85. 

CB, p: 190: 

"CBs Pp. 202, 203: 

WMEYC, Vi, 56-59: 

TIC Bs Pros: 

 Fundacio, p. 181. 

SEYC. Vi; 249: 

“*Roger Mustel was a nephew of St Gilbert of Sempringham. 

IC Bs p79: 

“CB, p.78, confirmed by ithe Luttrells, who had succeeded the Paynels as 
tenant-in-chief, CB, p.1o. 


until 1237 when the abbey was granted all the lands held in Adel by 
the priory. 

Henry II’s confirmation charter shows that six bovates of land at 
Bishopsthorpe, York, were granted by William Paynel. Roger, the 
priest of St Gregory at York, gave one toft outside Micklegate, the 
rent of which the abbey was still receiving at the Dissolution. 47 

Other Land in the Leeds Area 

The abbey’s first foothold in Horsforth came around the year 1180 
when land in Horsforth and Keighley which Adam FitzPeter had 
granted to Haverholm Priory was demised to Kirkstall.4* Hors- 
forth and Rawdon were divided between de Bruce, the Meschins 
and the Leathleys. FitzPeter’s land had been part of the Meschin fee. 
The larger grants in this area were all to come from the Leathleys. 
After a number of small grants, William Leathley conveyed to the 
abbey the whole of his land in Horsforth, except for six bovates 
which-he had granted to the Templars.*° These were soon 
conveyed to Kirkstall by the master of the Temple in England, 
making a total endowment of two carucates,*° and the whole was 
confirmed by Hugh, son of William Leathley, in a charter which 
can be dated about 1220.°%" 

The Mauleverers. were tendats in the de Bruce part of .the 
Horsforth fee. Robert FitzHubert granted the land on which Dean 
Grange was established. Mauleverer’s ‘free man’, Nigel, also 
granted land in Horsforth, which was added to by his son and 
grandson. °* 

The abbey’s considerable endowment in Bramhope began in the 
first generation of the settlement at Kirkstall.°3 By the end of the 
century almost the whole of Bramhope was shared between 
Kirkstall and St Leonard’s Hospital, York.* 

Slightly more distant was the important estate at Bardsey and 
Collingham. The land, known as Micklethwaite, was one of the 
abbey’s earliest acquisitions, and a grange was established there. It 
was confirmed to them on the gift of Herbert de Morville and his 

7 CBapp.214, 145 and 1. 

sad @) San OKs 

49Dodsworth, XCI, f.158. 

Duedale, MA, V., p.s27n. 

5!Dodsworth, XCI, f.15§7. 

Thide, 11.457, 158; British-Library, Add. MSS 17121; CB, p:66. 

C5 p90! 

‘4There is an incomplete list of holdings in Bramhope in Dugdale, MA, V, 538-40. 
Copies of some of the relevant charters are in British Library, Add. MSS 27413, 
5—6b, gb-11b, 22-25sb. 


son, Richard.°5 The abbey was dispossessed in 1173-74,°° probably 
as a result of the involvement of the de Morevilles in the rebellion 
against the king. An attempt by the Abbot Helias to recover the 
grange was unsuccessful, but, on the petition of Roger de Lacy, it 
was re-granted to the abbey in 1205 on condition that it also took 
the manor of Bardsey and Collingham at a fee-farm of £90.57 The 
land remained with the abbey until the Dissolution, but the site of 
the grange cannot now be precisely located. 

Land around Bessacar 

The abbey’s most southerly possessions were those around 
Bessacar and Cantley, about three and a half miles south-east of the 
centre of Doncaster and about thirty-two miles from the abbey. 
The land was held by Adam FitzPeter who, °a little dater; «was 
involved in the grants in Horsforth and Keighley.** 

William de Bessacar and William de Millerts granted land before 
1162 and by the time William's son; Peter, confirmed) and 
enlarged the grant, a grange and sheepfold had been established. 
Geoffrey de St Patrick gave twelve bovates in Bessacar and Hugh 
FitzHugh FitzNigel granted ten bovates in Brampton. 

Among the benefactors in Cantley was Reginald, grandson of 
William de Peitevin,®! who had given the abbey its site at Kirkstall. 
Reginald held the land of Hugh FitzHugh, perhaps the grantor of 
the land in Brampton. 

Some Implications of Land Tenure 

An attempt has been made to list all gifts to the abbey in 1 the period 
up to about 1210, the date of the first compilation of the Coucher 
Book. One hundred and thirty-eight gifts and grants of various 
kinds have been noted, of which 126 are included in the Coucher 

Of these 138 gifts, 128 were of land. Only in eighty-six of them 
is there any indication in figures of the extent of the land conveyed, 
but this is quite enough to make clear the large differences in the 
size of the gifts. In some cases a whole vill was given: Cookridge by 
Roger Mustel in 1172-74, Adel by his son, William, in 1198-1204, 

EB. pea. 

5° Fundacio, p.182. 

‘7 Fundacio, p.187. 

See above, p- 19: 

CB, prusOn megs & VG. 6: 
CB, PP. 1sOy b5es 165,103. 

%' Dodsworth, VIII, f.75. 

Allerton by Adam Samson,” and in a later period the manor of 
Headingley was given in 1324 by John de Calverley. °3 Of the grants 
where some idea of size was given the largest was that of Robert de 
Lacy, who gave three carucates in Snydale.® Fifty-three gifts were 
measured only in acres, and of these thirty-three were of five acres 
or less and six were of only one acre. A number were gifts of 
assarts. Occasionally the size of an assart is given and this varies 
between eight and eleven® acres. The only indication of the size of 
a culture, another common unit of grant, was at Wetecroft where 
Robert FitzAsketin said his culture extended for ‘one acre and three 

Of the ten gifts which were not of land, three were of annual 
payments in cash. Henry de Lacy gave one mark each year for the 
vesting of the abbot, and half a mark to keep a light burning in the 
church before the Blessed Sacrament. Samson de Allerton gave five 
shillings a year to the monks ‘to make them a pittance on St 
Lawrence’s Day’®’ and Robert de Stapleton, shortly after this early 
period, released a rent of half a mark so that the monks could 
receive a pittance every St Botolph’s Day (17 June), his father’s 
birthday.°®* Four were gifts of buildings, two were grants of rights 
of way and the other was a gift of twenty cart-loads of hay.7° 

No grants of rent are referred to in the records surviving from 
this early period”! but it is clear from a fourteenth-century case that 
such grants were made. Gifts of rent in Cleckheaton by Eudo de 
Longvillers and his son, John, were referred to in a case heard in 
York in 1348.7? Eudo was one of Henry de Lacy’s knights in 1166, 
so that his gift must belong to the early days of the house. 

A number of charters begin ‘omnibus hoc scriptum visuris vel 
audituris’,7? suggesting that they were perhaps at some point read 
aloud publicly, and there is evidence that boundaries were some- 
times walked to establish the precise identity of the land conveyed. 
Peter de Bessacar granted all the land which belonged to his fee ‘per 

2B YG, Vil 240°CB, pp-78, 100 
°3 Calverley Charters, p.161. 

“4 CB, p.146 

“GB, pp.240 174. 

"CEB, pls; 

°7CB, pp.s4, 55; Dodsworth, VIII, f.47b. 
CB, pr204. 

GD, Opts 55 075 132,-E7 C,, I, 202. 
ICBy PPIs; 133; 200. 

™For later grants of rent, see below, p.41. 
“CB, pp:2,78-83. 

(EES Ne PPL201, 262: 



metas et divisas quas coram subscriptis testibus perambulavimus’, 
and the line ofa fence or ditch between Newhall and Bolling to protect 
the monks’ field from their neighbours’ beasts was agreed ‘secun- 
dum... perambulationem per viros legales et fideles factam’.”4 

Occasionally a gift was made in court. The gift of land in Burdon 
by Hugh de Burdon and his wife, Beatrix, was made before the 
king’s justices at Doncaster and Richard de Barkston’s grant at 
Bishopthorpe 1n 1202 was also made before royal justices, includ- 
ing the Bishop of Norwich. Richard de Wetecroft’s gift in 
Wetecroft was made in the presence of the court of the wapentake 
of Skyrack, meeting at Wigton windmill.?> William de Leathley 
involved his men at Horsforth in the gift of Northcrofts. Agree- 
ment was reached between the monks and the men of Horsforth 
about the land to be given, William confirmed the land which his 
men had conceded to the monks, rent was to be paid to the men 
‘and so that my men shall concede this in a good spirit, the monks 
have given them half a mark of silver’.”° 

All these grants include some reason for the donation, generally 
‘pro salute anime mee’ or ‘pro salute anime mee et uxoris mee et 
heredum’. William, son of Nicholas de Allerton, granted land 
within the ditch around the grange at Allerton ‘ut participemus 
orationum et elemosinarum que fiunt in domo predictorum 
monachorum’.”” Robert FitzHubert granted land in Horsforth ‘pro 
animabus patris et matris sue et omnium parentum suorum et 
omnium fidelium defunctorum ... et ut ipse et heredes sui 
participes fierent omnium beneficiorum que fiunt in ecclesia’.”* We 
should perhaps not assume too hastily that all such expressions 
were merely conventional.” 

In thirteen of the 138 grants at present under consideration the 
abbey made a gift to the donor at the time of his grant ‘pro 
recognitione’ or ‘pro caritate’.*° The gift was sometimes a sum of 
money but more often money with a gift in kind and even presents 
for the rest of the family. Roger de Ledston was given one mark of 
silver and half a basket of corn, but Hugh FitzRobert received two 
marks of silver and two horses and two cows, while his wife was 

ACE. pp. ton, 170. 

CD, Ppros, Lis: 

PCB App 77> 92. 

EB. D108. 

BCR p71: 

7See B. D. Hill, English Cistercian Monasteries and their Patrons in the Twelfth Century 
(Urbana, 1968), pp.53-54, for a discussion of the motives of early Cistercian 
founders and benefactors. 

“Ce pp il, ia: 


given two cows. Robert FitzAsketin received twenty solidi and a 
horse, his wife twenty ewes and his daughter a bridle for her 

Of these 138 grants all but one were grants in frankalmoin, that is 
the word ‘elemosina’ is included in the formula which describes 
their form of tenure. The exception is the grant of Collingham and 
Bardsey in fee-farm by King John.* ‘A gift in free and pure alms to 
God and his saints has meant not merely, perhaps not principally, 
that the land is to owe no rent, no military service to the donor, but 
also and in the first place that it is to be subject only to the law and 
courts of the church’.*} Maitland’s view has since been emphasised 
by a number of other writers.*4 There would seem therefore to be 
two aspects of frankalmoin tenure which should be considered: the 
jurisdiction of the courts and the services which might be 
demanded of holders of land held in frankalmoin. 

Maitland surmised that ‘a glance at any monastic annals of the 
twelfth century is likely to show that the ecclesiastical tribunals, 
even the Roman curia, were constantly busy with the title to 
English lands’.*’ The Kirkstall documents available do not support 
Maitland’s suggestion, though none of the known documents 
relating to land cases is earlier than 1198. No dispute about title to 
land is recorded during this early period, and throughout the 
history of the abbey any dispute about land was heard in the royal 
courts, emther at Westmimster or by the justices on assize, 
generally ate York; but also’ -at “Doncaster; Lancaster and 
Northampton. The only cases on record which were heard before 
church courts were those concerning tithe. 

The question of services 1s more complicated. Frankalmoin 
tenure was, in the twelfth century, primarily concerned with 
jurisdiction and only secondarily with the exclusion of secular 
service. It was, in any case, impossible for any tenant to release land 
from the services which it bore, so that when land was re-granted it 
MER Up isee7 2) 115: 
°C By p22 U8. 
83F, Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law, 2nd edn, reissued with 

a new introduction and select bibliography by S. F.C. Milsom, 2 vols 
(Cambridge, 1968), I, 251. 
84E. G. Kimball, “Tenure in Frankalmoign and Secular Services’, EHR, XLIII 

(1928), 341-53; F. M. Stenton, Transcripts of Charters relating to Gilbertine Houses, 
Lincoln Record Society, XVIII (1922), xxvii; Hill, English Cistercian Monasteries, 
pp- 56-57. 

8s Pollock and Maitland, p.251. 

°°E. G. Kimball, ‘The Judicial Aspects of Frankalmoign Tenure’, EHR, XLVII 
(1932), 11, concluded that lay courts began to assume jurisdiction over church land 
soon after the beginning of the thirteenth century. 


was necessary to decide where the burden of services lay. Of the 
138 grants rent or services are mentioned in only thirty-eight.*7 In 
cases where service was not mentioned it was, presumably, borne 
by the lord.** Robert Wallis was to receive from the monks for land 
in Seacroft eight solidi annually ‘ad servicium faciendum’.*? Bracton 
distinguished grants of land in which the word ‘pure’ was included 
from those where it was not. “To sum up briefly Bracton’s theory, 
it is this: land may be granted in free or free and perpetual alms for a 
service due to the donor, or in free, pure and perpetual alms for no 
such service’.°° The Kirkstall documents give some support to this 
view. Of the 117 frankalmoin grants in the Coucher Book 110 
include the word pure in the terms of the tenure; in only eighteen of 
them is rent or service demanded, that is in two grants in every 
thirteen. Of the grants not including the word ‘pure’ fourteen out 
of fifteen include a rent charge. It is not possible to date these 
documents sufficiently closely to see whether these differences in 
terminology and the exaction of rent represent a developing 
practice in frankalmoin in the half-century at present under 
Rents varied in amount from one denarius to three marks per 
year, and were usually paid in two instalments, at Pentecost and at 
the feast of St Martin (11 November). For land described in bovates 
the rate was fairly uniform at Is. per bovate per year, but where the 
land was described in carucates the rate varied from ss. tod. to one 
mark®! per carucate, both in Headingley, though it was most often 
8s., that is still at 1s. per bovate. Where land was described in acres 
the rates varied widely, from about 2d. per year in Pontefract to 
IS. per acre per year in nearby Darrington.** Rent was occasionally 
demanded in kind; for example, the pound of pepper annually for 
land in Snydale and the pound of cummin from Rawdon.?! 
The total of all rents payable by the abbey on lands granted up to 
about 1210 amounted to £10 §s. 9d. If with this is compared the 
fee-farm of £90 for the land at Collingham and Bardsey granted by 
King John,°%4 the wholly exceptional nature of this grant, both in 
*‘7In two of these 38 gifts forinsec service only is required, leaving 36 where an 
annual payment of some kind is demanded, that is, about a quarter. Hill (English 
Cistercian Monasteries, p.72) misled by the small sample which he examined, 
concluded that the number was about a half. 

*8Pollock and Maitland, p.245. 

CB, purr. 

° Kimball, “Tenure in Frankalmoign and Secular Services’, pp.342-43. 

“CB, pp.04, 57: 

Seven acres for a rent of 4d. annually, CB, pp.153, 152. 

CB, pp. las, 67% 

OD, pu2ier 


the size “of the=rent demanded and in the terms of the grant, 
becomes apparent, though it is exceptional only in its being held 
by a monastic house and not by a layman.% 

It is worth examining the way in which rents are described in 
the charters where an annual payment is demanded. In some it is 
simply ‘reddendo annuatim ... u solidos’ or ‘monachi dabunt 
mihi annuatim ii solidos’,%* but in a large number the money 
payment is clearly regarded not as a payment for the use of land 
or buildings but as a commutation of services due from the land. 
Thus the abbey will pay to Roger de Ledstone ‘iii denarios .. . 
pro omnibus serviciis que ad terram pertinent’ and to William de 
Peitevin and his heirs ‘singulis annis unam tantum marcam pro 
omnibus serviciis et consuetudinibus que mihi vel dominis meis 

In the fourteenth century the use of the word ‘redditum’ for 
rent is more usual, but the idea that such a payment was in place 
of services remained.** 

Of the 138 ‘carly ‘grants, services other “than ‘rents’ are 
demanded in eleven instances and of these ten refer to ‘forinsec 
service .°? Stenton argued that “im the reign of Henry I] this 
phrase has not yet become a synonym for military service,‘ but 
in all the Kirkstall documents the context makes it clear that it is 
in fact military service which is being demanded. The formula is 
usually ‘faciendo forense servicium, quantum pertinet ad 
dimidiam carrucatem terre, unde viginti carrucate faciunt feodum 
unius militis’.'’ The remarkable point about such grants is the 
extent to which knights’ fees had been divided. In one case only, 
thav-ot Adel,™? did the abbey hold by the service of a whole 
knight. The equivalents of one-eighth, one-sixteenth, one- 
nineteenth, three-twentieths, one twenty-fourth and one-fortieth 
@f-the- ‘Service: of a knight's fee are’ demanded, and in one 
instance, even one one-hundred-and-ninety-second!'°} The land 

°° William de Stutevill held the same land for £100, CB, p.217. 

"CB. p77, see alsoubid., pp.78, 99, 72: 

27 GiB, 652; for exanple, p.59: 

eee Allerton, CB, pp.8d, 85. 

°° The exception is CB, p.195, where service is demanded but not specified. 

0 F M. Stenton, Documents illustrative of the Social and Economic History of the 
Danelaw, British Academy Records of the Social and Economic History of 
England and Wales, V (1920), p.cxxvil. 

CB, P99: 

CB pays: 

'3 CB, p.175. ‘Quantum pertinet ad unam bovetam, unde xii carrucate faciunt 
feodum dimidii militie.’ 


which formed the equivalent of a knight’s fee varied across the 
area in which Kirkstall held land. The following table gives some 
idea of the variation: 

Carucates per 

knight’s 2 Location Reference 
62 Bramley CB. 29 
8 Headingley CB, 65 
IO Wetecroft CE ar 
r2 Eastburn CB, 186 
12'h Eastburn CB, 137 
14 Keighley CB;<224 
16" Allerton CB, 106 
20 Burdon CB, 86 
a4" Pudsey CB. 175 

* Expressed in the charter as half a knight’s fee and here raised to the equivalent 
of a whole fee. 

As Maitland has commented, ‘the appearance of small 
fractional parts of a knight’s fee could hardly be explained, were 
it not that the king had been in the habit of taking money in lieu 
of military service, of taking scutage .. .’,"°4 and the position is 
made absolutely clear by Robert de Brearey in his gift of land in 

Monachi vero facient forense servicium, hoc est quantum 
pertinet ad nonamdecimam partem servicii militis. Ita tamen 
uod nec hominem nec equum nec arma invenient, sed per 
eee suos terram defendent. ‘> 

The date of this grant is earlier than 1198 and it may even 
belong to the time of the first abbot.'°° 

All the charters include a sentence of warranty undertaking, 
for example, to ‘defend the said land to the monks everywhere 
and against all men’. It is possible that the grant at Newhall by 
Hugh Vavasour'®’ was to make good a loss to the monks. It was 
granted ‘in escambium illius bovete quam Matildis filia Roberti 
dirationavit versus me et eosdem monachos coram Justiciariis 
itinerantibus’. William Paynel granted to the Hospitallers land in 

'°4 Pollock and Maitland, p.256. 

COB, p82, 

'°6 Tt is included in the tithe agreement with Adel church, CB, p.93. Land at Brearey 
is included in the list in Fundacio, p.181. 

OD, P.Ag2t 


Hooton Pagnell in exchange for land granted to them in Eccup and 
Adel'°* which they had lost at the time of Kirkstall’s expansion into 
the Adel area. 

Occasionally the warranty was more specific. Robert de Burdon 
promised that if by chance he or his heirs were unable to warrant 
the land they would give to them ‘an exchange in the same vill to 
the same value’.'°? Robert de Lacy promised land in exchange to 
the same value from his demesne. ''° 

Gifts or grants to the abbey during the first century of its history 
were almost all gifts of land. Of the 138 gifts during the first half of 
that century only one or perhaps two were of rent. In the second 
half-century the proportion rose to thirteen out of seventy-six or 
about one grant in six. Over the half-century 1260-1310, of a much 
smaller number of grants, the proportion had risen to three in every 
five. After that the operation of the statute Quia Emptores created an 
entirely different situation. These figures of rents relate only to new 
grants and not to land rented to tenants after it had been granted to 
the abbey. It was in this latter way that the greater part of the 
abbey’s income from rents was gained. 

Grants of Land in the Later Period 
Some attempt must now be made to explain the falling off in grants 
to the abbey which has been noted above. Clearly factors operating 
generally throughout the country and even throughout the western 
Church affected Kirkstall also. While it would be a mistake to talk 
ef a lack of, or even a decline in, religious fervour in the age of 
Grosseteste and Alexander of Hales, of the impact of the friars on 
England, of the great religious buildings at Westminster and many 
of our greatest cathedrals, yet, as far as the older orders were 
concerned, their ‘early fertility had gone’™' and the foundation of 
the Cistercian abbey of Hayles in 1251 ‘was in a sense the end of a 
chapter. It was the furthest wash of the tide from Citeaux’.'!? 
There is, however, a particular factor which needs more careful 
examination. It has been argued that grants of land to monasteries 
reduced the services available to overlords and to the Crown.'% 
The case has not been proved.''* There are a number of examples 

VEY C, V 16256: 

CBs poo. 

tr Bk pe 202), 

"tT Knowles, RO, I, s. 

PANU. «vO: 

"3 Hill, English Cistercian Monasteries, p.60. 

4 See review of B. D. Hill’s book by S. Wood, EHR, LX XXIV (1969), 824. 


described in the Coucher Book and elsewhere''’ from the period 
1256-1314 which show the overlord enforcing by distraint services 
due from land which had been granted to the abbey. The cases 
arose where the abbot had been distrained upon for service, 
generally suit of court but in one case for scutage as well, because 
the tenant of whom the abbey held land had failed to quit the abbey 
of the~service due to his lord. The cases related to- land “in 
Darrington, Horsforth and Keighley, West Armley and Adel 
respectively. The first three were initiated by the abbot to recover 
the loss he claimed to have suffered through his being required to 
undertake services which should have been performed by the 
mesne tenant between the abbey and the lord to whom the services 
were due. In all four cases the abbot’s right to quittance of services 
by the terms of his grant was upheld. The Horsforth and Keighley 
case was complicated when the respondent, in this case Adam de 
Everingham, argued that the abbot had never been distrained to 
perform the services which he (Adam) should have performed. 

These cases make it clearvthat ‘grants m frankalmom “did not 
necessarily result in loss of services to the overlord and that where 
he was determined to do so services could be enforced. 

Plucknett has discussed this situation'!® and concluded that ‘the 
old action of mesne where the sub-tenant could compel the mesne 
to do his duty to the lord was slow and cumbersome and in any 
case was ineffective’. The procedure may have been slow and 
cumbersome — the Horsforth and Keighley case lasted for at least 
seven years (1307-14) — but it does not seem to have been 
ineffective in the cases described. 

Hill might have been on firmer ground had he distinguished 
between feudal services and feudal incidents.''7 It has been empha- 
sised by a number of writers’ that it was dissatisfaction among the 
lords about loss of feudal incidents from lands granted to religious 
houses which led to considerable discontent in the thirteenth 
century, expressed first of all in Magna Carta, then in enactments 
by successive parliaments and culminating in the statute of 
mortmain in 1279. ‘His new tenant [that is, the monastery] never 
died, and so there was no ward to be in wardship, to pay relief or to 

“CB, p.145; p.231 and the sequel, p:227;p.234 and C. W.« Foster, ed-. Final 
Concords of the County of Lincoln, I, Lincoln Record Society, XVII (1920), 114. 

"TF. T. Plucknett, Legislation of Edward I (Oxford, 1949), pp.92-94. 

"7 For a useful account of feudal incidents with special reference to the period in 
question, see]. M. W. Bean, The Decline of English Feudalism (Manchester, 1968), 

8 Plucknett, pp.94-100; Bean, pp. 51-53. 


be married, and no possibility of escheat for felony or for failure of 
heirs.’"'? The sharp decline in grants to Kirkstall coincides with the 
period when action was being taken in Parliament to reduce grants to 
religious houses without the authority of the overlord.’ The 
Kirkstall figures also show clearly that grants had seriously declined 
well before the statute of mortmain was promulgated and it would be 
difficult to show that the statute had any effect at all upon new grants 
to the abbey. 

The process by which, after the statute, land was acquired by 
religious bodies’?! can be illustrated fully from the Kirkstall 
documents. A precept for the necessary inquisition ad quod damnum, in 
this case dated 1312 and in respect of a proposed grant by William de 
Peitevin of land in Headingley, 1s printed in the Coucher Book’? and 
the findings of the inquisition in 1323 which preceded John of 
Calverley’s grant of the manor of Headingley are given in full.'?3 Of 
the thirty-one licences issued to Kirkstall'*4 the related inquisitions 
can be identified for all but one, '*5 this being the appropriation of the 
church ot Bracewell’? im 1347. Phe licence to alienate issued by 
Richard II in respect of grants by Sir John Mauleverer and Elizabeth 
Bendy is included in full in the Monasticon,'*? and in many cases the 
charter which recorded the conveyance of the land is known. 

The practice of using a general licence to acquire land or rent up toa 
certain amount is said to have been introduced in order to reduce the 
amount which would have to be paid in fines. '?* On one occasion only 
did Kirkstall make use of such a facility. Grants up to a total value of 
£20 were allowed.’ Although it has not been possible to trace all the 
grants which made up this total it is clear that this general licence did 
not obviate the need for an inquisition in each case. 

As the fourteenth century progressed it became increasingly usual 
for the licence to be issued to the abbey to acquire land from more than 
one donor and under the name of one donor to include a very varied 

+ Plucknett, p.05. 

— Bean, post. 

'21 See a useful short article by A. Gooder, ‘Mortmain and the Local Historian’, The 
Local Historian, [X (1971), 387-93. 

GB. pe3 30: 

26 BD. 1p-300 

VV CPR, passim: 

'25 Inquisitions ad quod damnum are listed in PRO, Lists and Indexes, I (1904); II (1906). 

2° CPR, 1345-48, p.431. 

i Dugdale VA, V, 545. 

28K. L. Wood-Legh, Studies in Church Life under Edward III (Cambridge, 1934), 

29 CPR, 1307-13, p.434. 


grant. It looks as if licences were not applied for until a number of 
proposed grants could be dealt with at the same time and this again 
might be expected to reduce the costs of the operation. A licence 
issued in 1377%3° covered grants by six donors and one of the 
licences issued in 1392'3' covered three donors, of which the grants 
by William de Horbury and John Chapman, both of Yeadon, were 
described as follows: 

. one messuage in York held of the King in burgage; Io 
messuages 9 tofts, 6 bovates, 77 acres of land, 15 of land, 15 of 
meadow, 6s. 6d. rent in Bardsey, Ecup, Horsforth, Armley, 
Headingley, Allerton Gledhow. 

William de Horbury and John Chapman do not appear elsewhere 
in the abbey records, either as benefactors or as witnesses to 
charters. The same is true of William de Lepton of Wortley and 
William Poyd of Adel and of William Spyrard, all of whom were 
similarly involved in licences to alienate in mortmain at about this 
time. These men were perhaps acting as agent for the donors or 
possibly as executors.'3? This suggestion is supported by the 
survival of a power of attorney granted to William de Lepton by 
Henry the Cowhird [sic] of Collingham in respect of a grant of 
land to Kirkstall, and also by indications in a number of charters 
that the land was part of the estate of a deceased person. Richard 
Marshall granted land ‘of the gift and enfeoffment of’ Horbury and 
Chapman which had once belonged to William Webster and 
Matilda, Marshall’s mother. "33 In 1392 the abbey was given licence 
to acquire from William Spyrard land which the charter shows to 
have been formerly of Richard, son of William Brown.'4 William 
de Lepton and William Poyd of Adel granted to the abbey ‘all the 
lands which we have from the gift and enfeoffment of John 
Attewood’."35 It is clear that if the estate of a deceased person was to 
pass to the abbey it would be necessary for the land to be held by 
someone while the procedure for securing the licence was 
followed. In 1393 William Baxter, rector of Adel, conveyed to 
Kirkstall two messuages and a considerable amount of land in 
Brearey, Arthington and Allerton Gledhow with which he had 
been enfeoffed by John de Brearey, descendant of the Brearey 
family which had been associated with the abbey since its early days 

MOCPR,. 1377-81, p64: 

31 CPR, 1391-96, p.43. 
"Cr, Goodet,-p:391: 

™ “Charters, Allerton’, p.99: 
MATHId., p98. 

3° 101d... Pri 03. 


in Airedale. Here again William Baxter appears to have been acting as 
agent or executor for John de Brearey. "3°, 

To what extent the overlord or ‘the chief lord of whom the thing is 
immediately held’ should be consulted in the acquisition of land by the 
church was a question which had been very much the concern of the 
parliaments of the middle years of the thirteenth century. The statute 
ignored it but the form of licence used by Edward I referred to the 
‘licence of us and of the chief lord of whom the thing is immediately 
held’.'37 In one case, among the licences to acquire land issued to 
Kirkstall, leave was granted to acquire land from Robert Mauleverer, 
Richard Marshall, Edmund Frank and William de Brighton all of 
whom held a considerable amount of land in Allerton Gledhow."3* 
Frank was the heir of all the land held by the de Allerton family who 
had been among the abbey’s earliest benefactors and whose 
association with the abbey had been continuous since that time; 
Mauleverer was the representative of a family with interests in 
Horsforth, Rawdon and Allerton. The Marshalls had held land in 
Allerton for nearly two centuries and were successively witnesses to 
many grants of land there. In the event no land was granted by these 
men. It seems likely that the licence to acquire land from them referred 
to land which would be granted by their tenants. The ‘chief lords’ 
were thus involved from the beginning and subsequent actions which 
might have led to forfeiture would be avoided. "39 On some occasions 
the ‘chief lord’ gave permission before the land was acquired. This 
was done by William Killingbeck before Henry the Cowhird and 
Mary, his wife, made their grant'#° andJohn Scot, Robert Mauleverer 
and their sons gave permission to acquire land formerly held by John 

It is possible in a number of cases during the fourteenth century to 
link the initial inquisition, the licence to alienate and the final grant of 
land. Inanumber of other cases, however, the link between the licence 
to alienate and the grant can be made only if one of the above 
possibilities is allowed; that is, that the licence 1s given to the abbey to 
acquire land from someone who is not the real donor but someone 
who is acting either for him or his overlord. The mass of grants in the 
Allerton area in 1392-93 can only be satisfactorily accounted for on 

3° CPR, 1391-96, p.283; Bodleian Library, MS Top., Yorkshire e 2 (Watson MSS), 

“7 Plucknett, p. 100. 

38 CPR, 1391-96, p.43. 

'39 For such an action, see Plucknett, p.10r. 

“c“Clwarters, Allerton’, p.103. 

‘41 Ibid., p.96. 


this basis. This still, however, leaves a number of grants not fully 
explained. It has been emphasised how rigorously the statute was 
enforced.'# There are, however, among the Kirkstall charters grants 
which, on the evidence available, suggest that grants were made 
without the necessary licence having been obtained. '*3 There are also 
examples of licences to alienate not apparently followed by a grant of 
land, ‘4 but this is more easily understood and may well result from 
loss of evidence or from a proposed course of action not carried 

On two occasions Kirkstall was pardoned for acquiring land 
without the necessary licence. On one of these, for a payment of 
eighteen marks, they were allowed to keep the three houses in York 
which they had acquired illegally.'4 

The other great statute of Edward I’s reign which directly affected 
grants of land was Quia Emptores of 1290. The expected effect was that 
newly acquired lands would be by substitution and not by further 
subinfeudation and the creation of new tenures. Where we have 
evidence this is exactly what emerges. When Headingley was granted 
to the abbey by John de Calverley in 1324"4° the abbot became the 
tenant of the ‘chief lord’ at Pontefract instead of John de Calverley. A 
number of grants in Allerton were grants which had been previously 
held by someone else; for example, the land granted by Henry the 
Cowhird was ‘formerly of William Hagger and Cecily his wife’. 
Richard Marshall granted land which was once of William Webster 
and Matilda, Marshall’s mother; the land granted by William Spyrard 
was described as ‘once of Richard Brown, son of William Brown of 
Allerton aforesaid’ .*4” 

The acquisition of the manor of Headingley, and indeed of any land 
held by military tenure might involve the abbot not only in services 
due to the overlord, but alsoin the receipt of services and incidents due 
from his tenants. Thus land in Allerton, formerly held by William de 
Morwyck and by William and Margaret de Couthorp'#* was acquired 
with wardships, fealties, reliefs, escheats, suits of court and other 
services. Only on one occasion can the abbot be seen performing any 
of the duties attached to sucha lordship, when, in 1526, he disposed of 
Jennett Watson in marriage with William, son of Richard Rookes of 
Roydes Hall. "49 

'#? Wood-Legh, p.61. 

“ss Evg., Cnarters, Allerton, pps8i, 86, 80. 

Meee, (CUR, 1334—-36,.(p. 72: 

45 CPR, 1408-13, p.241; see also CPR, 1307-13, p.436. 
'4© Calverley Charters, p.16. 

mT “Charters, Allerton , pp.104, 00, 07. 

 1bid.) p84. 

WONDIG.5. put ely 

Economic Organization and Development 

Granges and Lay-brothers 

The Cistercian order had begun as a purely spiritual movement, 
asking of the world only enough to provide the bare necessities of 
lite. Yet,-before the order was a century old, it had made an 
enormous impact on the economic life of western Europe. This 
was due partly to the great popularity of the order, associated 
especially with the personality of St Bernard, which carried its 
influence far and wide, but also to the Cistercians’ revolutionary 
agrarian organization, based on its granges and lay-brothers.' 

The establishment of granges goes back to the earliest days of the 
history of Kirkstall Abbey. When the community moved to its 
permanent Site their first -seat’ was ‘reduced to a’ grange’; 
Micklethwaite is referred to as a grange in the days of the first 
abbot;} granges at Allerton, Bessacar and Oldfield (Keighley) are 
referred to in charters which may well date from the same time* 
and ‘two granges neighbouring the abbey’ — perhaps Bar Grange 
(Burley) and New Grange (West Headingley) — are included in the 
list of lands acquired under the same abbot. To the last years of the 
century belong the Accrington grange,° established under Abbot 
Lambert during the years 1190-93, and possibly also granges at 
Brearey, Cookridge and Snydale.° The grange at Hooton Pagnell 
must also have been established early as it was relinquished to the 
Luttrell family in 1204.’ By 1288 there were, in addition to these, a 
second grange near Keighley known as Elam, and others at Burley 
(as well as Bar Grange) and Moor Grange (Headingley).* The 
grange for the lands in Bolland was at Rushton.? 

A total of twenty-five granges can be identified, not all of them 
active at the same time. Cliviger was short-lived'® and was replaced 
by Accrington, '' which, with the grange at Roundhay, was lost to 
‘Knowles, MO, pp.215-16. L. J. Lekai, The White Monks (Okauchee, Wis., 1953), 

*Fundacio, p.179. 

’Fundacio, p.182. 

1CB.pp.104, 159) 179. 

‘Fundacio, p.184. 

°The grange at Snydale is referred to in CB, p.148, which 1s pre-1210. 

TEE, ps0). 

®PRO, E142/86/T. 

°CB, p.203, a charter of John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, and therefore 1232-40. 
'° Fundacio, p.184. 

"' [bid. 


the earl of Lincoln when he helped the abbey out of its financial 
difficulties in 1287.'* Some granges appear only late in the abbey’s 
history. Some, for example, Wether Grange (Bramley), appear first 
in the 1459 rent-roll, while others, such as New Lathes (Horsforth) 
and the second grange at Allerton, are first mentioned at the 
Dissolution.'} A further possibility is that the same grange appears 
under “different names: For example, Dean Grange.-wasat 
Horsforth, but whether this is the same as the grange at Horsforth” 
cannot be decided with certainty. It seems likely that there were 
about twenty granges in the last century of the abbey’s history, 
most of them by this time let for rent. 

The size of granges shows wide variation. In 1288 Compton 
(possibly Micklethwaite) comprised 444 acres, while Dean Grange 
(Horsforth) had only 95 acres and Elam (Keighley) only 48." 

Of the lay-brothers in the early days little can be said. We are told 
that ten lay-brothers accompanied the monks who left Fountains in 
1147.'° One would expect a large increase in that number during 
the second half of the twelfth century. '” 

Little is known of the organisation of the granges; Knowles has 
seen the thirteenth century as the period when, as ‘primitive zeal 
was lost’, lay-brothers replaced monk-wardens in charge of 
granges."* The grange at Accrington was ‘ruled by’ three 
lay-brothers, Norman, Humphrey and Robert, before the end of 
the twelfth century,'? but this was a distant grange and perhaps 
therefore not typical. Adam, a lay-brother, was described as a 
‘grangarius’ of Micklethwaite in a document which may belong to 
the middle years of the thirteenth century,”° and in 1276 brother 
Peter was granger at Barnoldswick.?! 

What staff the three lay-brothers at Accrington might have ‘ruled 
over’ is not indicated. Abbot Lambert is said to have ‘removed the 
inhabitants’ of the vill of Accrington,** but it is possible that ‘even 
where depopulation is alleged to have occurred its effect can seldom 
have been complete’:*? There are many teferencessto ‘giants~ot. 

'2See below, pp.43-44. 

'3 Account 1539-40. 

CB apr 

'SFigures from the 1288 extent. 
'© Fundacio, p.174. 

'7 Knowles, MO, p.348. 

'8 Knowles, RO, I, 74. 

'? Fundacio, p.184. 

PB on 22h 

*1 Rotuli Hundredorum, I, 112. 

* Fundacio, p.184. 

*3C. Platt, The Monastic Grange in Medieval England (1969), p.83. 


villeins to the abbey.*4 Their total number cannot be calculated as 
such grants are often expressed in such terms as ‘all the men I have 
in that vill (Cliviger) and all their families and chattels’.*5 It is clear, 
however, that they must have formed an important part of the 
abbey’s labour force. The only reference to a servant is to the 
unfortunate serving-boy whose ear Peter, the granger of Barnolds- 
wick, cut off for stealing two loaves of bread.”° 

Exploitation of Land 

Two factors may have influenced the location of grants of land. 
One was clearly the particular interests and loyalties of the 
grantors. So Kirkstall never received grants beyond the river 
Wharfe in the Harewood area where the Meschin family had a 
special interest in Bolton Priory. The other reason was perhaps the 
availability of waste. All the land granted to the abbey in the de 
Lacy and Paynel fees was in vills shown as waste in Domesday or, 
in a very few cases, where the value was very much reduced. There 
was; of course, much waste land in the Leeds area, but in Leeds 
itself, which was not waste, no grants were received until a much 
later ‘date. 

To the lay-brothers would have fallen the responsibility for 
making productive these gifts of land, much of it waste, which 
began to come to the community as soon as it reached Kirkstall. 
They were almost certainly helped by peasant labour. Reclamation 
from waste had, however, begun before the monks received their 
grants. Endowments are often described as ‘cultures’ or ‘assarts’, 
suggesting recent cultivation.*? The Coucher Book gives the 
impression that clearance had been particularly vigorous at 
Horsforth where all the charters which relate to grants of land use 
such descriptions. 

Places ending in *-thwaite’, usually meaning a clearing, are rare 
in Domesday, but become increasingly common from about 1150 
onwards.** Micklethwaite, which does not appear in Domesday, 
was one of Kirkstall’s earliest and most important acquisitions. 

*4CB, passim. Grants of villeins only are grouped together, pp.205—09. 

CB, p.195. This must date from before 1200 as Cliviger was given up by Abbot 
Lambert, c. 1193 (Fundacio, p.184). 

© Rotuli Hundredorum, 1, 112. 

7E.g., CB, pp.67, 73. Such examples could be multiplied. 

*8H. Lindkvist, Middle English Place-names of Scandinavian Origin (Uppsala, 1912), 



Evidence of clearing by the monks themselves is provided by fines 
exacted by the king for encroachment on the royal forest. Between 
TI69 and T170 they ‘paid-2£7 10s,” in 1177-78); 38. Od.,°° and an 
1184-85 again £7 1os., which was, however, pardoned by the king.3' 
Clearance of land was going on wellinto the thirteenth century at least 
when, at a date perhaps between 1220 and 1250, William de Allerton 
gave the monks permission ‘to assart nine acres of landin Mikelker’.*? 
The monks sometimes marked the boundaries of their land by 
digging ditches or by the erection of a stone cross.?3 

The monks were not only interested in their land for the crops it 
would produce. There is evidence from their earliest history that they 
were occupied in the working of metals. The grant of a forge and land 
at Ardsley is recorded in a charter of Henry II witnessed by Thomas 
the Chancellor, which must therefore date from before 1163.34 Land 
and mineral rights were granted in Seacroft by William de Somerville 
on condition that the monks should provide his men with iron for 
their ploughs and also fill up the pits left by their workings.?5 In later 
years at least there were smithies at Weetwood and Hesywell, which 
were included in the demesne lands at the Dissolution,?° though they 
had recently been leased with permission to take sufficient wood to 
make charcoal.37 Minerals beneath the lordship of Horsforth were 
also worked at the time of the surrender of the house, but not by the 
monks themselves.3* What those minerals were is not specified. 

Much of the abbey’s land was, of course, arable and there are 
references to plough oxen at Roundhay grange and Bramley, to 
twenty-four oxen at Aldfield, and to oxen ‘ploughing the said land’ at 
Armley.*° There are frequent references in the charters to pasture fora 

2 The Great Roll of the Pipe for the 16th Year of King Henry II, Pipe Roll Society, XV 
(1892), p.4I. 

8° The Great Roll of the Pipe for the 24th Year of King Henry II, ed. J. H. Round, Pipe 
Roll Society, XXIV (1906), p.70. 

3! The Great Roll of the Pipe for the 31st Year of King Henry II, ed. J. H. Round, Pipe 
Roll Society, XXXIV (1913), p.74. 

CD18 2. 

3B, pp: 107, 66: 

4 Dugdale, MA, V, 536. 

35Dodsworth, VIII, f.58. See also CB, p.127. 

36 Account 1539-40. 

37PRO, MS lease 378. E303/23, Yorkshire. 

38 Account 1539-40. 

39 Excavations on the abbey site appeared to have revealed an iron-smelting furnace 
within the cloister precincts, T. A. Hume and D. E. Owen, Kirkstall Abbey 
Excavations, sth Report (PTh.S, XLVII, 1955), 77-80. This is now, however, 
known to have been a smith’s hearth and not a bloomery, R. A. Mott, ‘Kirkstall 
Forge and Monkish Iron-making’, PTh.S, LUI (1972), 155, n.4. 

CB, Pp. 53, 035 180,04: 


certain number of animals, but it cannot be established that the 
specified number of animals was actually kept on the land. There 
were, however, probably large herds at Rushton where Robert de 
Lacy gave ‘pasture for 160 horses with their fodder for two years 
and 200 cows with their fodder for three years’.4’ Armley had 
pasture for cows and goats, Riddlesden for cows, Horsforth, 
Potternewton and Osmondthorp for pigs, Aldfield and Burley for 
goats, Roundhay for cows, pigs and deer-calves,** while Bessacar 
had pasture for forty horses and for ‘cows and pigs without 
number’.4} There were poultry at Rushton. * 

Pasture for large flocks of sheep was granted, though it would be 
rash to assert that the number of sheep specified was actually kept. 
It may have been a way of describing roughly the size of the grant. 
The largest such grant, and one of the earliest, was at Bessacar, for 
1000 sheep; for 7oo at Seacroft,*© for 300 at Bramhope, 
Potternewton and Cookridge,*’ for 240 at Beeston* and for flocks 
of 200 at Riddlesden,- Austhorpe, Clifford and Snydale 
respectively,*? with smaller flocks at many other places. Only at 
Barnoldswick, Rushton and Accrington is pasture for sheep not 
mentioned. If the number of sheep for which pasture had been 
granted by about 1220 is added together the total is 4,680, but while 
this may be an unreliable guide to the size of the abbey’s flocks at 
that date, the figure is not an unlikely one.°*° 

Sheep-farming and the Production of Wool 

Professor Knowles considered that it was towards the end of the 
twelfth century that the Cistercians established themselves as the 
leading producers of wool.’ Sheep-farming was certainly well 
established at Kirkstall by about that date. There is a reference to 
the monks’ sheep-fold at Bessacar in a charter of the son of the 
original grantor of the pasture there, ** to the monks’ 200 sheep in 

CB DP $3. 

“CIE PPLO“e- 1S > 7h, HOOMIZ2,, 18 17O1, 53: 
OEY, Il, £56. 

CB. x53 

ee Cail 156. 

OB, xb 2 

AEB; G00: 

BCD, PI24S- 

7G, PPylsA-TLO, 138, 150. 
°°See below, p.4o. 
‘Knowles, MO, p.352. 
CBP 5 8. 



their sheep-fold at Wyke and to 400 at Bardsey in a document dated 
1209.53 Sheep-folds also existed at Cookridge, Allerton, Aus- 
thorpe, Seacroft and Newhall. Land suitable for making a 
sheep-fold was granted at Pudsey.** All these references may be 
dated to the later twelfth or early thirteenth centuries. These folds 
were probably light, temporary structures, ‘the walls resembling 
brushwood hedges placed around growing meadows’.®* 

Information on farming practice is scanty. When pasture rights 
were granted near the abbey’s grange at Aldfield the monks were 
allowed to keep the lambs with the sheep ‘until they are weaned; 
then all the lambs shall be removed except forty which shall remain 
there for the whole year in addition to the said number of 200 
sheep’.°° In a charter of William de Somerville which may be dated 
not later than 1193 the donor requires that 400 of the monks’ 700 
sheep shall be folded on his own land.*’ This is perhaps because of 
the value of the sheeps’ manure.‘* The monks were given 
permission to remove their sheep if they feared murrain among 

The only clue to the kind of sheep kept on the Kirkstall pastures 
comes from a much later date. In the mid-fifteenth century the 
Cistercians were allowed to eat meat and a meat kitchen was built 
at the abbey. An analysis of the animal remains found when the 
meat-kitchen was excavated showed the existence of two kinds of 
sheep: horned, the short-woolled sheep, and hornless, the 
long-woolled or valley sheep,*°? but it would clearly not be safe to 
conclude that these two kinds of sheep were kept on the abbey’s 
pastures in the thirteenth century. 

The names are known of some of the wool-merchants with 
whom the abbey had dealings. The financial statement for the year 
1284 refers to the company of James de Pistokis® and there is 
reference in a document in the Coucher Book to relations with the 
Betti of Lucca.*' The merchants of Pistoia were among the 

3B, perl. 

CB, pp.96, 104, 116, 124, 244; “Charters, Allerton:.p.45. 

5SR. A. Donkin, ‘Bercaria and Lanaria’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, X XIX 
(1956-58), 449. 

S°CB, pp.184-85. 

CD. dD we, 

*’Knowles, RO, I, 71, where Knowles has estimated that the sheep’s manure might 
be worth one-third of the price raised for the wool-clip. 

9M. L. Ryder, ‘The Animal Remains found at Kirkstall’, Agricultural History 
Review, VII (1959), Pt 1, I-S. 

° Fundacio, p.189. 

"CB, pp.225-27. 


companies used by the papacy at this period as depositaries,° and 
the Betti can be identified from the Hull customs roll of 1275.° 
N. Denholm-Young has found the abbey also in debt to the 
merchants of Florence in 1278.% If wool was sold to Florentine 
merchants it must have been shipped by merchants of another city 
or nation as Florentine ships did not begin to appear in English 
waters until the fifteenth century.°° 

The Coucher Book document which refers to the Betti provides 
almost the only information we have about the working of the 
wool trade at Kirkstall. The abbey had agreed in 1292 to sell all its 
wool for ten years to these merchants at 15 marks a sack for the 
good wool, 92 marks for the medium quality and 8 marks for 
‘lock’, or poor quality wool. The merchants paid to the abbey an 
advance of 160 marks which would be allowed to them out of their 
instalments at 20 marks per year for the last eight years of the 
contract. This money had been assigned to the King in part 
payment of a debt to him by the Betti and the King now sued 
Kirkstall for the money. The agreement had apparently brought 
the merchants into financial difficulties and they had been unable to 
keep their part of the contract, but the court upheld the abbey and 
the merchants’ money was forfeit. The practice of forward selling, 
so often condemned by the general chapter, is seen clearly here 
and also the Cistercians’ practice of sorting the wool into three 
grades. There would appear to be another reference to forward 
selling in the financial statement of 1284°’ where five sacks of wool 
are shown as owing to Bernard Talde, about whom nothing more 
is known. 

The only other information comes from the well-known list of 
English monastic houses included in La Pratica della Mercatura by 
Francesco Balducci Pegolotti,“ a Florentine who represented the 
great banking firm of Bardi and who was in England during the 
years 1317-21. It has been subjected to a number of different 
interpretations.°® Not even the precise date is certain. It can, 

°W. E. Lunt, Papal Revenues of the Middle Ages, 1 (New York, 1934), p.304. 

6N. S. B. Gras, The Early English Customs System (Cambridge [Mass.], 1918), 
pp.225, 233-35, 237, 243. 

°#N. Denholm-Young, Seignorial Administration in England (Oxford, 1937), p.61. 

6’ A. Ruddock, ‘Italian Trading Fleets in Medieval England’, History, n.s., XXIX 
(1944), 197. 

* Denholm-Young, p.55. 

°7 Fundacio, p.189. 

°F. Balducci Pegolotti, La Practica della Mercatura, ed. A. Evans (Cambridge 
[Mass.], 1936). 

°° Denholm-Young, pp.53-54. Knowles, RO, I, 70-71; Pegolotti, p.xxix. 


however, be said that about 1320 Kirkstall was producing at least 
twenty-five sacks of wool per year. This compares with 
seventy-six at Fountains, sixty at Rievaulx and twenty-five at 

The number of sheep had risen from none in the account of 1284 
to 4,500 at the visitation of 1301.7? A production of twenty-five 
sacks per year would represent a further increase, but by exactly 
how much it is difficult to say. If each sack contained 300 fells, then 
Kirkstall had at least 7,500 sheep,”' but on the basis of figures which 
Knowles took from Grosseteste and other sources” the corres- 
ponding figure would be 5,500. 

The Economy in 1288 

Am extent of the abbey’s lands, dated.3 April. 1288,. provides 
valuable evidence of the agrarian economy of the house at that 
date.”3 Certain lands are, however, excluded” and, as the summary 
of Kirkstall’s assets in 1284 shows no sheep at all,”5 the balance of 
arable to pastoral farming may be an exceptional one. 

In 1287, when the earl of Lincoln began to help the house out of 
severe financial difficulties, the king charged him ‘if perchance the 
abbot and convent . . . require that their lands and tenements be 
valued as to their yearly income from all sources . . . then if the 
creditors themselves agree you shall cause it to be carried into 
effect’.7° If this was the occasion of the survey it would clearly be in 
the monks’ interests to secure as low a valuation as possible, and 
this could be achieved by exaggerating the amount of land under 
the plough at the expense of that used for pasture. 

Some of the places listed, and perhaps all, are granges. Bar 
Grange and Moor Grange are included, La Dene is probably Dean 
Grange; early granges are known at Burley, Allerton, Brearey, 
Cookridge and Elam, and all these are included. The extent shows 
wide variations in the size of the granges — 48 acres at Elam, 307 at 
Bar Grange and 444 at Compton, if this is Micklethwaite grange. It 
also shows wide variations in land values. Pasture was worth 
Is. 8d. an acre at Cookridge and 4s. at Clifford; arable was worth 

7 Fundacio, p.203. 

™ Denholm-Young, p.57. 

7? Knowles, RO, I, 71. 

723 PRO, E142/86/1. 

74 Barnoldswick, York, Rushton and lands near Doncaster. 
75 Fundacio, p.189. 

7° Fundacio, p.193. 


4d. at Allerton and Moor Grange (Headingley) and 8d. at Elam and 

Changes in Agrarian Practice 

The Cistercians had originally rejected ‘income of rent or toll from 
land, mills or any form of imposition, nor were they to receive any 
rents or services from dwellers on the land’.””7 Much of Kirkstall’s 
holdings, however, could never have been exploited directly by the 
abbey. By 1200 it was receiving grants of whole vills7* and unless 
wholesale eviction took place, of which there is no evidence at this 
date, the abbey must have received rent from the time that it 
accepted the endowment. That this could have been money-rent is 
shown from evidence from the bishop of Durham’s estates that a 
monastic house was receiving money-rents as early as about 1183.7 
The 1288 extent shows an annual income from rents and farms of 
£74, while the value of land in demesne was £92. 

Knowles suggested 1300 onwards as the approximate date when 
English Cistercians were ‘gradually going over from direct 
exploitation of their lands to a system of rents and leases’.*° The 
only firm conclusion to be drawn from a study of the available 
Kirkstall evidence is that, although in 1288 Kirkstall was dependent 
on rents for a considerable part of its income, it is between 1288 and 
1459 that large-scale leasing developed. In 1288 Barnoldswick is the 
only grange known for certain to have been leased, and special 
circumstances may have operated in this case.*' By 1459 Aldfield, 
Dean Grange (Horsforth), Elam, Moor Grange, Snydale and 
Wether Grange (Bramley) were certainly leased and rents. were 
being collected in Allerton, Brearey, Bessacar, Burley, Darrington, 
Loscoe and Rushton, at all of which places there had once been 
granges. *? 

Detailed evidence for the progress of leasing is not available. 
Only thirteen documents are known which give such evidence and 
all of these deal with small or even very small amounts of land. The 
earliest is from the years 1182-92,°3 but eight of the thirteen belong 

77 Knowles, MO, p.349. 

ME.¢., Cookridge, EYC, VI, 251, perhaps as early as 1174. 

77M. M. Postan, “The Chronology of Labour Services’, Transactions of the Royal 
Historical Society, 4th series, XX (1937), 177. 

°° Knowles, RO, II, 126. 

CB, p.330cand 1.4. 

*2 The 1459 evidence is taken from ‘A Rent-Roll of Kirkstall Abbey’, pp. 1-21. 

83 EYC, III, 202, which relates to the grant of a house in Pontefract to Renier of 


to the period of Abbots Maurice and Adam (c.1235-50), no doubt 
following the relaxation by the general chapters of 1208 and 1224 of 
earlier restrictions on leasing and on the acceptance of income from 
rents.°4 The others date from the period 1325-35 and follow a 
relaxation of restrictions on leasing by a central authority.*° 

The advantage of leasing and no doubt one of the reasons for it 
can be seen in a comparison of figures from the 1288 and 1459 

1288 1459 

a Sed. aoe 
Allerton 12 16 10% 24 YO.0 
Brearey LT 8". 0 [0 4250 
Burley fs 135 <2 
Dean ‘Grange (Le Dene) oid 8 Tek 

The total value of the land recorded in 1288 was £207 9s. I1d.; 
the total from rents alone in 1459 was £354 7s. 3¥%d.°*° 
Some granges were leased to individuals, *’ in some cases to two 
or three men,** while some were split into a number of separate 
tenements.*? Practice appears to bear no relation to the size of the 
If one reason for leasing granges was to increase their value, 
another was clearly the difficulty in recruiting adequate and suitable 
labour within the traditional system. It was during the first half of 
the fourteenth century that the institution of lay-brothers virtually 
disappeared. The gradual emancipation of the villein class, the 
growing prosperity of the small leaseholder and peasant, the rise in 
the value of the labourer’s hire, the withdrawal increasingly by the 
choir-monks from manual occupations” made suitable recruitment 
more difficult at a time when responsibilities were increasing. J. T. 
Donnelly has noted the frequency in the thirteenth century of 
disturbances among the lay-brothers in widely scattered houses.% 
84]. T. Donnelly, ‘Changes in the Grange Economy of English and Welsh Cistercian 
Abbeys, 1300-1540’, Traditio, X (1954), 420-23. 

*1bid.,. p.420. 

6 The comparison is not an exact one as the lands included in the two documents are 
not precisely the same. 

*7E.g., Dean Grange and Moor Grange. 

*8E.g., Wether Grange and Snydale. 

%2E.¢., Bat Grange, Allerton, Brearey, <tc. 

Knowles, RO; 1, 77; Il; 125. 

J. T. Donnelly, The Decline of the English Cistercian Lay-brotherhood, Fordham 

University Studies, History Series, No.3 (1949), Appendix. 


The Black Death must have taken its toll and in 1381 there were at 
Kirkstall only sixteen monks and six lay-brothers.” 

Financial Difficulties 

For nearly a century from 1276 onwards the abbey faced serious 
financial difficulties and surmounted a number of major crises. In 
1276 the sheep farmers of England began to be seriously affected by 
the incidence of murrain or scab among their sheep. This disease 
was caused possibly by frequent very wet periods. By 1284 
Kirkstall had no sheep. 

Financial difficulties were not new to the community. In spite of 
Henry de Lacy’s help at the time of the removal to Kirkstall the 
abbey was in debt to Aaron of Lincoln on his death in 1186, a debt 
which was remitted by Richard I for a consideration of 1,000 
marks. The king had granted his protection to the house in 1261, 
D265 aid. 1208,” and in 1276 the house, which is in debt . was 
granted royal protection for five years and committed to the 
custody of its patron, the earl of Lincoln, ‘until further orders’.°% 
The abbey was again in debt to the Jews?’ and had been unable to 
meet its obligations to the ‘lord Cardinal Jordan’.°* When this last 
debt had not been met by the agreed date the general chapter of 
1280 ordered the abbot, Gilbert de Cotles, to resign.°? In 1281 
Kirkstall applied to the general chapter for permission to 

A summary of the state of the house at the appointment of the 
new abbot, Hugh Grimston, in 1284, is given in the Fundacio, as 

Draught oxen 16, cows 83, yearling and young bullocks 16, asses 
21, sheep none. 

"VG, Yorrshire, Wil, 144; c.t., six lay-brothers at Jervaulx, three at Ricvaulx, 
one at Roche, ibid., pp.144, 151, 154. 

3 Fundacio, p.189. 

*Memn. Fountains, SS, LX VII (1878), 18, n.4. 

AGUik, 1250-00, Pp.153, 455; 1200-72, p.256. 

GPR, 1272-8h,, p.170. 

7 Calendar of Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews, ed. H. Jenkinson (1929), p.262. 

* Canivez, III, 203. The Fundacio also refers (p.189) to difficulties ‘respecting Simon’ 
having been brought to an end. A certain (perhaps a papal) collector appears in 
connection with English houses in a number of decisions of the general chapter at 
thisitume, eye., Canivez, Ill, 33, 30, ete. 

* Canivez,, lll, 203. 

je Canevez, il, 212. 


debts owed without question by the acknowledgements made 
before the barons of the exchequer LAAO2 20S. Tai Sic] 
Scrip in the hands of the company of James of Pistokis 500 marks 
Scrip “de Judaismo’ in the hands of the abbot of Fountains 

500 marks 
5 sacks of wool and 9 marks owed to Bernard Talde 
Quittance in the hands of John Saylbes 340 marks 
The sum of all the debts is £5248 158. 7d: 

The new abbot acted vigorously to deal with these difficulties. 1°! 
In 1287 he sought out the king in Gascony and, with the help of the 
patron, laid his difficulties before him. The king protected his own 
interests by ordering that the abbey should not be distrained upon 
to such an extent that it would be unable to pay him his annual farm 
of £90 for Bardsey and Collingham, but refused the complete 
protection it asked for and entrusted the earl of Lincoln with taking 
the steps necessary to save the house. “The abbot agreed to 
surrender land and rents in Accrington, Cliviger and Huncoat in 
Lancashire and Roundhay, Seacroft and Shadwell in Yorkshire, 
together with the £4 which the house had been receiving annually 
from the exchequer at Pontefract — a total annual income of 
{al 7s. od. mm exchange for £53 $s. 8d. annually fromthe can, To 
meet the abbey’s immediate needs the earl would loan them £350 to 
pay their most pressing debts — to the Cardinal and to the Jew, Coik 
of London —- which they would repay by not receiving any of the 80 
marks annual payment until 1298; that is, 550 marks deferred to 
repay a loan of the equivalent of 525 marks. 

The effectiveness of these measures can perhaps be judged to 
some extent by the state of the house at the visitation of the abbot 
of Fountains in 1301: 

Draught oxen 216, cows 160, yearlings and young bullocks 152, 
calves 90, sheep with lambs 4, 500. 
Debts £160. 1% 

This clearly represents a quite remarkable recovery in less than 
twenty years, especially when seen beside the quite unprecedented 
demands which Edward I made upon the Church in the last decade 
of the thirteenth century.'°} Kirkstall was one of the houses which 

'°' This account is taken from the Fundacio, pp.189—203. 

'°? Fyundacio, pp.203-04. 

'°3 See F. M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1953), pp.469-s509, and 
H. S. Deighton, ‘Clerical Taxation by Consent’, EHR, LXVII (1953), 161-92. 


met promptly the king’s astonishing demand in 1294 for a half of 
their goods and benefices and were in return granted royal 
protection for one year.'° It seems likely that Kirkstall also paid the 
grant of one-third or one-fifth in July 1297.19 

Royal demands continued into the next century, though on a less 
extravagant scale. Edward I] demanded victuals for his Scottish 
campaign and acknowledged his indebtedness to the extent of 
£16 tos.‘ The monasteries were required to ‘sell’ wool to the 
Crown and sometimes to wait a very long time for payment, and 
also to make cash loans. 

Financial aid was demanded against the Scots in 1334'° and for 
the wars against the French. '°* The northern monasteries also bore 
the burden of Scottish raids and levies to repel them. 

It was on monasteries thus weakened by years of financial strain 
that a new disaster fell. It has been estimated that at least 115 heads 
of religious houses died as a result of the Black Death and that the 
disease entered perhaps double that number of monasteries.'°? The 
full impact was felt in Yorkshire in the summer of 1349. On 12 
August of that year at Meaux the abbot and five monks died in a 
single day and out of fifty monks and lay-brothers only about ten 
are said to have survived.''? Comparable figures for Kirkstall are 
not known, but it is perhaps significant that four abbots occur 
between 1348 and 1355. 

On the basis of the information provided by the Kirkstall 
documents one is led to the conclusion that only in its very early 
years did the economic organisation of the house conform at all 
closely to the ideals of the founders of the order. It has been found 
that within half a century of its foundation granges were being left 
in the charge of lay-brothers, income from prohibited sources such 
as tithes and rents was being accepted, and only a little later from an 
advowson (c.1222). Soon afterwards the changeover from direct 
cultivation to an economy of rents and leases began, and by 1288 a 
considerable part of the abbey’s holdings was rented. From this 
date onwards granges gradually passed into lay tenancy and the 

4 CRR, 1292-1301, p.90. 

'°5 Kirkstall was not among those from whom fines were received for non-payment. 
CPR, 1292-1301; Deighton, p.182. 

ICO R, 1307-13) p: 201. 

WC CRs 1937-38, pss: 

8 CPR, 1345-48, p.431. 

'°9 Figures from P. G. Mode, The Influence of the Black Death on English Monasteries 
(Chicago, 1918), p.18. 

"°P. Ziegler, The Black Death (1969), p.183. 


once distinctive institution of lay-brothers virtually disappeared. It 
must be said, however, that these changes took place to a 
considerable extent because of economic changes in the outside 
world over which the monks had no control. 

The Internal Life of the Monastery 

It is when one tries to discuss the internal life of the monastery that 
the gaps in the sources are most serious. Of the whole system of 
visitation, which was such an important feature of Cistercian 
organization and one which might have been expected to provide 
valuable information, only one small fragment remains: a summary 
of the condition of the house when visited by Abbot Thornton of 
Fountains in 1301.' The contacts which must have come about 
through abbatial elections are represented only by the celebrated 
election at Fountains which caused the long dispute of 1410-16 at 
which the abbot of Kirkstall was present as assessor.? No accounts 
such as those of the bursar at Fountains} are known to survive. It is 
thus only possible to gain occasional glimpses of the life of the 

The Monastic Community 

Two firm statements of numbers are known. When the 
community left Fountains to found the new house at Barnoldswick 
it consisted of Abbot Alexander, twelve monks and ten lay- 
brothers.* In 1381 there were sixteen monks and six lay-brothers.° 
A considerable increase in numbers, especially of lay-brothers, 
would be expected during the second half of the twelfth century, 
but no evidence of this survives unless it is seen in the change in the 
position of the refectory, possibly to accommodate a larger number 
of monks.° At the Dissolution there were nineteen.’ 

What is probably a complete list of abbots can be compiled 
(Appendix, p.95), and it is possible to say a little about their 
origins. It is not surprising that, in the early appointments, the 
influence of Fountains was strong. Alexander, the first abbot, had 
been prior of Fountains. Ralph Haget, the second abbot, was a son 

'Fundacio, pp.203—04. 

?E. F. Jacob, “The Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey, 1410-16’, in Medieval 
Studies presented to Rose Graham, ed. V. Ruffer and A. J. Taylor (Oxford, 1950), 
Pp. 78-07. 

3Mem. Fountains, SS, XLII (1863). 

4Fundacio, p.174. 

SVCH, Yorkshire, Ill, 144. 

°Hope and Bilson, pp.s1-53. 

7See below, pp.88 et seq. 


of Bertram Haget, founder of Healaugh Park and a benefactor of 
Fountains. He had been a knight before he became a monk of 
Fountains during the abbacy of Robert (1170-79)* and became 
abbot of Fountains after leaving Kirkstall about 1191.9 Lambert was 
one of the original twelve sent out from Fountains'® and Turgisius 
had presumably been a monk of Fountains for the writer of the 
Fundacio to speak of his ‘returning to Fountains’ after his nine years 
as abbot of Kirkstall.’ Helias, the fifth abbot, had been a monk of 
Roche, but the Fountains influence was maintained with the 
appointment, about 1209, of Ralph of Newcastle, formerly a monk 
of that house and a close associate of abbot Ralph Haget. '” 

A number of abbots were members of local families. Hugh de 
Grimston and John de Bridesale,'} who had both been monks of 
Kirkstall before becoming abbot, were almost certainly connected 
with local families of some importance and linked by marriage." 
The de Bridesale, or Birdsall, family had been lords of the manor of 
Clifford at least since 1166 and were benefactors of the abbey.’ 
John de Bridesale accompanied Hugh de Grimston on his journey 
to Edward I in Gascony in 1287.'° During Hugh’s abbacy, in 1294, 
a Thomas de Bridesale was instituted to the living of Bracewell on 
the presentation of the abbot and convent’? and in 1313, during 
John’s abbacy, a William de Bridesale granted land in Bramley to 
the abbey, having obtained leave to alienate in mortmain.™ It is 
probable that Robert Killingbeck, who was abbot between 1499 
and 1501, was connected with a local family, first tenants of the 
abbey and after the Dissolution owners of some of its land.'9 
William de Stapleton (c.1414-15) also bears the name of a local 
family. William Marshall, the last abbot but one, in whose period 
the tower was raised, was the brother of Christopher Marshall of 
the Potter Newton family of that name.*° 

SC. T. Clay, ‘The Early Abbots of Yorkshire Cistercian Houses’, Yorkshire 
Archaeological Journal, XX XVII (1952), 19, n.5. 

°Fundacio, p.183. 

'° Thid. 

'' Fundacio, p.186. 

“Mem, Fountains, SS, XU, 123. 

*CB, p:27; Fundacio, p. 180. 

“CB, pps 7=338: 

(Gon ee oe 

'° Fundacio, p.189. 

'7 Reg. Romeyn, I. 

'SCPR, 1307-13, p.592. 

'9For a list of references to the Killingbeck family, see W. Levison, ‘A Manuscript of 
Geoffrey Monmouth and Henry Huntingdon’, EHR, LVIII (1943), 49, n.3. 

0*Testamenta Leodiensia’ [1496-1624], ed. W. Brigg, PTh.S, IV (1893), 146. 


Only in a few cases can anything be said of the personality of 
any of the abbots. Ralph Haget is described as ‘a man of piety 
and noteworthy for all holiness’.*’ Two incidents from his life 
are recounted by Professor Knowles and described as ‘worthy of 
as place im the record of English) (spintuality’.2* He -seems, 
however, to have been inexperienced in administration and his 
period of office was one of considerable difficulty. Henry II 
seized the grange of Micklethwaite and the abbey was so 
impoverished that it even dispersed for a time.” 

Lambert had been forty years a monk before his election as 
abbot.** He had to face the loss of Cliviger andthe violent attack 
on the grange at Accrington which the abbey had received in 
exchange.?5 His successor, Turgisius, was a man of very ascetic 
habits who, it is said, could never celebrate mass without tears 
‘and so great was the flood of them that he seemed less to weep 
them than to pour them down like rain’.2° Abbot Helias began 
his abbacy in an unfortunate way for Robert de Lacy ‘albeit 
patron of the monastery, being ill-advised by certain men, 
conceived so great a dislike to the said abbot that he did not 
deign even to set eyes on the man, or to allow him into his 
presence’.*”? Afterwards the two men became close friends and 
together secured the return of the grange of Micklethwaite from 
King John.** 

There are several examples of serious indiscipline in the history 
of the house. Adam, the grangarius, and Walter, keeper of the 
ploughs, lay-brothers at the grange of Micklethwaite, were 
charged with the murder of Adam, :the forester of ‘Clifford: 
The date of this incident is unknown. 

The record of the general chapter for the year 1280 refers to 
‘the rebellion of the monks of Kirkstall against their father of 
Fountains ... and the conspiracy which has grown up among 
them’.2° The discontent may have been connected with the 
deposition in that year by the general chapter of Abbot Gilbert 
de Cotles for failing to pay certain money due to Cardinal 

*! Fundacio, p.181. 
Knowles, MO, pp.357—-58. 
*3 Fyndacio, pp. 182-83. 

4 Fyundacio, p.184. 

23 [hid. 

© Fundacio, p.186. 

27 Thid. 

8 Fundacio, p.187. 

*? Gib, pe22:. 

°Canivez, III, 200. 


Jordan, ‘a special friend of the order’,*! or it may have had its roots in 
the serious economic difficulties the house was facing at this time.?? 

At least one abbot was involved, with some of his monks, in acts 
of serious indiscipline. In 1356 Abbot John, probably John Top- 
cliffe, seems to have organised some of the members of his commu- 
nity — five monks and a lay-brother — and four laymen into a gang to 
terrorize the neighbourhood. Thomas Sergaunt’s house at Thorpe, 
near Knaresborough, was besieged, Thomas was imprisoned at 
Wetherby, his house and property damaged and goods stolen.+3 In 
1366, either in the same abbot’s time, or in that of his successor, 
John de Thornberg, the vicar of Sandal, the archbishop’s official, was 
attacked by the abbot, a lay-brother and two widows and the vicar’s 
servant was killed. The purpose of the attack was to prevent the 
citation of Margaret, widow of Robert de Baghill, ‘notoriously 
defamed of many grave delinquencies’ to appear before the arch- 
bishop.3+ There were complaints by St Leonard’s Hospital, York, 
of attacks by Abbot John and a party of about twelve laymen 
on their property and servants in several parts of Yorkshire,?> and 
by John of Gaunt?® of damage to his property at Tickhill, Ponte- 
fract and Knaresborough. Even when allowance has been made for 
the vigour with which such charges were pressed in medieval times, 
the spiritual discipline of the house, which in 1381 numbered 
only twenty-three, must at this time have been at a very low level. 

A second example of the deposition of an abbot by the general 
chapter occurred in 1432 or 1433 when the resignation of Abbot 
John de Colyngham was required by visitors appointed by the 
general chapter and including the abbot of Clairvaux.3’ 

Of the recruitment of monks little can be said. If their names are 
any guide they came from such places as Leeds,3* Otley,3? Brace- 
well*#? and York.*' Sons of benefactors were sometimes received 
into the community. The examination of monks, including 

1° ibid., pp. 185, 203. 

32See above, pp.43-44. 

3CPR, 1354-59, p.498. 

4 CPR, 1364-67, p. 362; 1370-74, p.158. 

ISCPR, 1377-81, p.95. St Leonard’s held land adjoining that of Kirkstall at 
Bramhope. Relations between the two houses were never good. See below, 
pp. 75-76. 

9CPR, 1377-81, p.357. 

TCanivez, IV, 388: 

CB, pra: 
CPR, 1354-58, p.498. 
4° Thid. 

4" Reg. Giffard, I, 97. 
CB pies. 


the future abbot, Hugh Grimston, probably before their ordination as 
priests, is seen in the register of Archbishop Giffard in 1274.# 

Of the details of the organization and administration of the 
monastery, records are again scarce. The obedientary system was by 
no means as highly developed among the white monks as among the 
black, and there are references in the records of Kirkstall only to prior 
and cellarer.# 

The chapter, which in the first generation of the Cistercians had 
been primarily ‘an assembly for spiritual conference’4’ was, at 
Kirkstall, in comparatively early times consulted on questions 
involving payments of money and transfers of land. The tithe 
agreement with Holy Trinity, York, about land within the parish of 
Leeds was drawn up ‘with the consent of both chapters’4° anda charter 
of Abbot Ralph, of about 1182-90,” granting a messuage in 
Pontefract 1s witnessed ‘by the whole community’. By the middle of 
the next century the endowments of the abbot would seem to have 
become separate from those of the community, for in 1252 Abbot 
Adam, before the whole chapter as witnesses, granted rents to his 
prior and convent.** 

The abbot had had his own rooms in the monastery for some years 
before this. The architectural evidence would place the building of the 
abbot’s lodgings at about 1230, much earlier than any similar 
buildings in other Cistercian houses.*? The abbot’s roomis referred to 
in a document dated 1336 when Miles de la Haye did homage to the 
abbot of Fountains for land in Hunslet ‘in the abbot of Kirkstall’s 
private room’.°° 

Other pointers toa less strict observance of the ruleemerge from the 
architectural evidence. The aisles of the infirmary hall would seem to 
have been converted for use as private rooms during the fourteenth 
century.*’ The hearths of two of them are still very clearly visible. In 
the fifteenth century alterations were made to the refectory to make 
possible the construction of a misericord and meat kitchen. The old 
refectory was divided into two stories, the upper of which was used as 
a.refectory and the ground floor as the misericord. * 

4 Reg. Giffard. 

OVER oer os 

45 Knowles, MO, p.637. 

4° Bodleian Library, MS Charters, Yorkshire, No.4. 
47 Ibid., No.5. 

8 Thid., No.9. 

#9 Hope and Bilson. 

SB, pad. 

‘' Hope and Bilson, p.4r. 

 [bid., p.48. 


There is an interesting reference to the services of the monastery 
in a letter which Abbot John de Bridesale sent from Dover while on 
a journey to the continent partly on the king’s business, but also 
perhaps on his way to the general chapter.*3 He asks that Richard 
Ekerlays should prepare to preach on Christmas Day, ‘unless we 
return before that time, so that that great festival may not pass 
without a sermon, which has never happened, nor by the grace of 
God shall ever occur in the future’.5t Henry de Lacy made grants 
from his farm of Clitheroe of one mark towards the abbot’s 
vestments*’ and of half a mark for a light to burn before the altar. °° 
The community was in possession of a gold chalice by the time of 
the second abbot, when it was given to Henry II in an attempt to 
recover the grange of Micklethwaite. 7 

Unlike the black monks it was not usual for the white monks, at 
least in their early years, to vary their diet on feast days, but at the 
institution of Michael de Torrenton to Bracewell, about 1229, one 
mark was reserved to the abbot for a pittance every feast day of the 
Purification. ** 

The world outside the monastery intruded in a number of ways. 
From 1305 to about 1440 there were always one or two, but not 
more, persons appointed by the king to corrodies within the 
abbey.°? They were usually men who had retired from minor 
positions in the royal household. The corrodians of Kirkstall were 
always men, but women were sent to the abbey’s dependent priory 
at Burstall.°° Two old men would not seem to be a heavy burden 
ona house, but there might also have been corrodians appointed by 
the founder’s family or by benefactors.°' Between 1352 and 1362 
the abbot petitioned the king® that his house should not be so 
burdened, but this request may have been part of the campaign 
carried on, almost, it seems, as a matter of course, by many 
monasteries to avoid having to receive corrodians.°} It may, 

‘3This could have been in 1312, when the abbot was granted royal protection, 
perhaps to attend the general chapter, see below, p.77. 

‘4 Fundacio, p.207. 

CB, psa. 


‘7 Fundacio, p.183. 

58 Reg. Gray, p.33- 

’°On royal corrodies, see S. Wood, English Monasteries and their Patrons in the 
Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1955), pp.90-92, IO7—-II. 

° CPR, 1441-46, p.446. 

*E.g., at Vaudey, VCH, Lincolnshire, Il, ed. W. Page (1906), p.143. 

° CB, pp.289-90. 

°}Wood, English Monasteries and their Patrons, p.109. 


however, reflect the economic difficulties of the house following 
the Black Death and the king’s financial demands in connection 
with the French wars.°4 Whatever the reason, the petition met with 
no success. 

Other less innocent people might also be found within the 
monastery walls. In 1426 the sheriff of York sent instructions to 
Walter de Calverley and others to attach certain men ‘dwelling with 
the abbot of Kirkstall to find sufficient surety at the next sessions 
for keeping the peace against the king and John William of 

In 1314 Archbishop Greenfield recalled to his own court from 
consideration by the archdeacon a charge that the abbey was 
admitting parishioners of the parish of Leeds to sacraments in the 
chapel above the gatehouse, and others to burial within the abbey 
grounds.® The conclusion does not appear. It was not unusual for 
the abbey to allow benefactors to be buried within the monastery 
bounds, but whether in the church or in the grounds is not clear.” 

Under a provision by Abbot Robert of Fountains in 1401, as 
father abbot of Kirkstall, women were to be allowed into the 
church of Kirkstall, but were on no account to be allowed to visit 
other parts of the monastery, even if they were invited by the 
abbot. This concession applied only to certain days, not specified.°* 

Intellectual Activities 

Kirkstall produced no scholars of the stature of Ailred of Rievaulx 
or the chronicler Ralph of Coggeshall. Hugh, one of the early 
members of the community wrote, in 1205-06, an account of the 
origins of Fountains® and was probably also the author of the first 
part of the Fundacio Abbathie de Kyrkestall to which numerous 
references have already been made. Hugh was professed by Abbot 
Ralph Haget in c.1183-84 and claimed to have obtained his 

% See above, p-45. 

°5 Calverley Charters, p.241. 

°° Reg. Greenfield, II, 177. 

°7 Reg. Romeyn, I, 14, William of Guiseley buried at Kirkstall; CB, p.193, Henry of 
Elland; Dugdale, MA, V, 532, Robert de Lacy. 

British Library, Cart. Cott. MSS, IV, 39, printed in Mem. Fountains, SS, XLII 
(1863), 205-06. 

6 Printed in full in Mem. Fountains, SS, XLII (1863), 1-128. 



information on the early years of Fountains from Serlo, who had 
been one of the group of monks who migrated from St Mary’s, 
York, to found the abbey of Fountains. He had also been one of the 
original group of twelve, who with Abbot Alexander had set out in 
1147 to found at Barnoldswick the house which was to become 
Kirkstall Abbey. In an analysis of the Fountains narzative L. G. D. 
Baker considerably reduces Hugh’s original contribution and 
shows parallels with similar writings which suggest that Hugh was 
writing in accordance with an accepted tradition rather than 
writing an objective history of the abbey.” 

The document now known as the Fundacio is clearly a composite 
document only the first part of which, ending at about 1210, is in 
narrative form. This may also be the work of Hugh, but this is not 
certain. It is the most important source for the early history of the 

A later section of the Fundacio includes a long letter by Abbot 
Hugh de Grimston written to the community in 1287 from 
Gascony when he had gone to seek the help of Edward I in the 
serious financial difficulties which the abbey was facing at this time. 
Much detail of the arrangements 1s given, and letters from the king 
to his treasurer, the bishop of Ely>the barons»of the 
Exchequer are included. 

The two chronicles which bear the name of the house cannot 
with absolute certainty be assigned to it.7' The ‘Long Chronicle’,” 
written about 1370-76, is in the same handwriting as the 
manuscript of the Fundacio. It deals entirely with events outside the 
house and reflects little credit upon the scholarship of the house at 
the time when it was written. “The manuscript is the work of a 
scribe who could not read what he was copying or who did not 
understand fully what was said.’?3 

The ‘Short Chronicle’,”* completed about 1400, is ascribed to 
Kirkstall on the basis of a note by Dodsworth on his transcription 
of part of it. It shows a sympathy with Richard II which is 
surprising in a house with such strong Lancastrian connections.’° 

7L. G. D. Baker, “The Foundation of Fountains Abbey’, Northern History, IV 
(1969), 29-43. 

™ The Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles, ed. J. Taylor (PTh.S, XLII, 1952), with a preface 
which describes the literary remains of the house. 

? Bodleian Library, Laud MSS, Miscellaneous 722. 

73M. V. Clarke and N. Denholm-Young, “The Kirkstall Chronicle, 1355-1400’, 
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XV (1931), 100-37. 

7*Dodsworth, CXL, but formerly part of the Laud volume. 

7’ The Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles, p.46. 


A number of original charters have survived”? and also the 
Coucher Book. The compilation of the latter appears to have 
begun in the early thirteenth century. The documents were 
grouped by areas beginning with those relating to Kirkstall and 
Headingley and moving out towards the more distant estates. 
After the finst compilation other documents were added and 
placed as closely as possible to those relating to the same area, 
even if this s«metimes meant placing them at the end of the 
section before. To the front of the collection was added a series 
of fines inserted in date order and running from 1192 to 1246, 
and after the charters a series of compositions as to tithe made 
between Kirkstall and the rectors of the parishes in which the 
abbey held land. Finally there is a series of inquisitions and court 
proceedings in which the abbey had been involved. 

One of what must have been a series of rent-rolls survived and 
has been printed.”” The original cannot now be traced. 

The library of the abbey was housed in the small book-room 
next to the chapter-house on the east side of the cloister, with a 
press in the cloister itself. 

Of its contents little can be said. Only eight manuscripts are 
known to survive. The manuscripts of which details are 
available”* are mainly collections of short works on spiritual 
topics. A volume which begins with ‘A tract concerning the 
spiritual eye’ is in the library of Jesus College, Cambridge,” and 
an entry on the first folio shows it to have been the gift of John 
Driffield, a monk of the house, on Ascension Day, 1344.*° In the 
library of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge,*! is a fourteenth- 
century volume beginning with a collection of the sayings of 
Augustine and Aristotle. It also includes other short works by 
Augustine and the book of the deeds of Barlaam and Josaphat 
from a Greek sermon by John the Damascene, ‘a holy and 
learned man’. This book was the gift of John Stamborn, also a 

7The most important manuscript collections are the Watson collection, Bodleian 
Library, MS Top., Yorkshire, e.2; Bodleian Library, MS Charters, Yorkshire, 
a.I, of which nos. 1-27 relate to Kirkstall; the Allerton charters in the possession 
of the city of Leeds and printed in PTh.S, IV (1895); British Library, Add. MSS 
17121 relating to the abbey’s holdings in Horsforth, and 27413 relating to 

PT haS, MM (1891), 1: 

™ The Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles, pp.37-40. 

77 Cambridge, Jesus College, 75 (M. R. James, Catalogue of Manuscripts . . . (1895)). 

8° William de Driffield was abbot at this time. See Appendix, p.95 below. 

*' Cambridge, Sidney Sussex College, 85 (M. R. James, Catalogue of Manuscripts . . . 


monk of the house, but it had been the property of Simon de 
Gowshill, a canon of the Gilbertine house of Chicksand in 

There are several Kirkstall volumes in the Bodleian Library at 
Oxford. The ‘Vocabularium ordine alphabetico of Huguccio of 
Pisa’®? has a note on the fly-leaf which clearly associates it with 
Kirkstall Abbey. Laud misc. 216, of the twelfth century, includes 
an exposition by Bede of the Proverbs of Solomon and a collection 
of sentences from the early Christian fathers. In another twelfth- 
century volume*} Smaragdus ‘compiled a small book concerning 
various virtues’ and the name “Diadema monachorum’. 
There is also a volume from the fifteenth century™ which includes a 
Life of St Germanus. 

There is a twelfth-century manuscript volume in the library of 
the University of Li¢ge which includes a work by Eutropius.* 
The abbey library also appears to have contained a copy of the 
Chronicles of Geoffrey of Hoyland.*° 

There is a printed book by P. Crinitus, dated Paris 1508, in the 
library. of Corpus Christi College, Oxtford.*” It was the ciftsor 
Christopher de Heddyngley, but it is not known whether he was a 
member of the community. 

It has been suggested that a manuscript now at St Cuthbert’s 
College, Ushaw, near Durham, and containing the Historia 
Regum Brittaniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth and part of 
Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum may also have been in 
the Kirkstall library, but the evidence is inconclusive.** Among 
the books of Henry Savile of Banke was a volume containing 
a miscellaneous collection of theological works and inscribed 
‘ex dono Thomas Foxcroft de Christall’.*? Savile is) knowineto 
have acquired books from the northern abbeys, especially from 
Fountams,»  Byland and “Rievaul<> “and muci “ef Mthic 

*? Bodleian Library, Laud MSS, Miscellaneous 722. 

‘3 Bodleian Library, Mus. 195. 

‘4 Bodleian Library, Laud MSS, Lat. 69, noted in N. R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of 
Great Britain, 2nd edn (1964), p.107. 

Ss Liege, University Library, 369C, also noted in Ker, Medieval Libraries. 

’°C. R. Cheney, ‘Les Bibliothéques Cisterciennes en Angleterre au XIle Siecle’, in 
Mélanges S. Bernard, XXIV Congrés de l’Association Bourguignonne des 
Sociétés Savantes (Dijon, 1953). 

"Ket, pp 107.272, 

SW. Levison, ‘A Manuscript of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Henry of Hunting- 
don’, pp.49—-50. 

‘J. P. Gilson, ‘The Library of Henry Savile of Banke’, Transactions of the 
Bibliographical Society, IX (1906-08), 176. 

Nido gD lgie 


abbey land passed into the hands of Robert Savile after the 

In 1400 Kirkstall was ordered to pay 40s. each year, until the 
work was complete, towards the cost of rebuilding Rewley Abbey, 
the Cistercian studium at Oxford until St Bernard’s College was 
founded in 1437.9? One Kirkstall monk is known at Oxford. In 
1433 the general chapter decided that Willelmus Gason, priest, of 
Kirkstall, had worked so well and brought such credit to his house 
and his order that he must remain to take his doctorate in 
Theology. The abbot was forbidden to remove him on pain of 
excommunication. % 

The Abbey Buildings 
The architecture of the church and the conventual buildings was 
studied very fully by two specialists, St John Hope and John 
Bilson, and a detailed account was published in 1907.% It will not, 
therefore, be necessary here to cover the ground again. An attempt 
will be made, however, to place the buildings in the context of 
other early Cistercian buildings, to draw attention to their 
distinctive features, and to refer to relevant contributions to their 
study which have appeared since the work of Hope and Bilson was 
published. 9° 

The ruins of Kirkstall Abbey are among the most extensive and 
best preserved of the English Cistercian houses. They mark a clear 
stage in the development of Cistercian architecture away from its 
Burgundian, or possibly northern French, exemplars; they show an 
important development towards Gothic building in the way the 
aisles and presbytery are vaulted, and they mark a stage in the 
gradual abondonment of the strictest injunctions of the order 
against decorative features.” 

The main structure of the monastery was built during the period 
of the first abbot, 1152—85.97 The buildings were erected more 
quickly than was sometimes the case with Cistercian houses,” 

See below, p.92. 

?R. C. Fowler, “Cistercian Scholars at Oxford’, EHR, XXIII (1908), 84. 

% Canivez, IV, 386-87. I have been unable to trace this man further. 

°* Hope and Bilson. 

°° The reports on the excavations of 1950—64 include detailed investigations of parts 
of the buildings, Kirkstall Abbey Excavations, 1950-54; 1955-59 (PTh.S, XLVIII, 
1961); 1960-64. 

°T. S. R. Boase, English Art, 1100-1216 (Oxford, 1953), pp.135-37. 

7 Fundacio, p.181. 

%M. Aubert, L’architecture Cistercienne de France (Paris, 1947), I, 101. 


possibly due to the support given by Henry de Lacy.” The stone, a 
sandstone known as Bramley Fall stone, was brought from quarries 
across the river and landed at a wooden Jetty of which remains were 
found by the excavators,’ together with many large blocks of 
stone which may have fallen during unloading. The stone 1s 
coarse-grained and extremely hard, which accounts for the 
bluntness in the rendering of the finer details in the sculpture, 
especially noticeable in the capitals. We are told, however, that 
Abbot Alexander diligently guarded the abbey’s own woodlands 
and brought the timber for building from elsewhere. '®! 

The earliest Cistercian churches in England, those at Waverley 
and Tintern, are generally agreed to owe their plan to St Bernard’s 
church at Clairvaux. They have a short nave and a square-ended 
presbytery, in contrast to the multi-apsidal east ends common in 
the later churches. They are both without aisles and have transepts 
with two or three chapels on their eastern wall. At Rievaulx, 
founded in 1132, the nave was considerably lengthened and aisles 
and a western narthex added. Anglo-Norman features can first be 
seen at Fountains (begun 1135). The pointed arches, transverse 
barrel vault and arcaded narthex remained, but the crossing was 
marked by a low tower, cylindrical piers replaced the Burgundian 
square piers of Rievaulx, and Anglo-Norman decorative motifs 
were introduced. 

It is to be expected that, given the close architectural uniformity 
of Cistercian houses and the proximity and importance of its 
mother-house, Kirkstall would be strongly influenced by the 
buildings at Fountains. It does, however, have its own important 
and distinctive features which possibly mark the development of 
church architecture during the fifteen years which separate the 
erection of the two churches. 

In spite of the presence of pointed arches all the churches so far 
mentioned place ‘more reliance in thickness of wall than in 
projection of buttresses’'* and therefore cannot be described as 
Gothic buildings. It was for Roche (c.1170) and Byland (c.1175) to 
introduce distinctive Gothic features. Kirkstall, however, took an 
important step towards Gothic practice in its use of semi-circular 
diagonal ribs with pointed and stilted transverse ribs in the vaulting 
of the aisles and of the presbytery. This marks an advance both on 
the use of the transverse barrel vault in the aisles at Fountains and 

° Fundacio, pp.179-80. 

'°° Kirkstall Abbey Excavations, 1955-59, p.57.- 

'°! Fyundacio, pp.179-80. 

'2 EF. Bond, Gothic Architecture in England (1905), p.43. 


on the use of segmental diagonal ribs in most Anglo-Norman 
buildings. A similar development was taking place in the Ile de 
France, but it is the view of both Bilson and Bony'™ that Kirkstall’s 
practice owes nothing to French influence. The Kirkstall vaults 
have been described as ‘the very earliest examples in England of the 
complete solution of the Gothic problem as far as the vaulting itself 
is concerned’ .'4 

The building of the church at Kirkstall coincided with the birth 
of ‘a vigorous new school of sculpture . . . in Yorkshire’.'°S This 
may have had the effect of helping to break down the early 
Cistercian opposition to decoration and of producing a much freer 
use of ornament at Kirkstall than had been usual in Cistercian 
churches before that date.'°° Kirkstall has composite piers made up 
of as many as twelve engaged columns; its capitals show a wide 
range of scallop patterns with occasional interlacing designs and 
include a revival of Anglo-Norman motifs.'°? Foliage capitals can 
be seen in the north transept; chevron designs are found in the west 
and north doorways and the latter has an unusual “Greek-key’ 
pattern. It should be noted, however, that all the Kirkstall sculpture 
is purely decorative and that nowhere are figures or animals 
represented as in much contemporary work elsewhere in 
Yorkshire. Not even the popular ‘beak-head’ motif appears at 

One of the most impressive buildings remaining, apart from the 
church, is the chapter-house, and this also is distinctive. ‘In the 
Cistercian houses of the north a different type of rectangular 
chapter-house was developed having vaulting piers dividing it into 
three circles and preceded by a shallow vestibule one bay deep over 
which a passage led from the dormitory to the night stairs in the 
transept.’?°? This was true of Fountains, Furness and Jervaulx, but 
not of Kirkstall. Here the vestibule is of equal size with the 
chapter-house proper and passes under the whole width of the 
dormitory above, while the vaulting in the chapter-house spans the 
whole room. 

'°3 Hope and Bilson, p.239; J. Bony, ‘French Influence on the Origins of English 
Gothic Architecture’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XII (1949), 3. 

*“* Hope and Bilson, p.236. 

'°SG. Zarnecki, Later English Romanesque Sculpture, 1140-1210 (1953), p.34-. 

‘°° A number of writers have drawn attention to this. Hope and Bilson, p.127; 
G. Webb, Architecture in Britain: the Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1956), p.47; 
Boase, p.36. 

'°7 Webb, p.47. 

Se 7asneckisip.37. 

'°9 Webb, p.60. 


The early Cistercian houses built their refectories, in accordance 
with traditional Benedictine practice, on the south side of the cloister 
and parallel to it. Fountains, Furness, Melrose and Newmuinster are 
examples. In the late twelfth century'’® the refectory at Kirkstall was 
altered so that its long axis was perpendicular to the south cloister. 
This occurred ina number of houses and 1s perhaps related to the rapid 
numerical expansion of the order during this period. A refectory inthe 
north-south position could be extended to the limits of available 
ground. The rebuilt refectory was almost as large as that of the largest 
northern houses. A second alteration to the refectory took place 
when, following the relaxation by Benedict XI] 1n 1335 of rules about 
eating meat, the refectory was divided into two stories to provide a 
misericord on the ground floor."'' At the same time a new meat 
kitchen was built to the south-east. '! 

The constitution of the Cistercian order required that the abbot 
should ‘lie in the dorter’ and ‘eat in the guest-house’. Kirkstall was one 
of the earliest houses to provide separate accommodation for its 
abbot, perhaps in 1230. It was a three-storied building, the ground 
floor perhaps serving as servants’ quarters, withthe principal room on 
the first floor approached by a stone staircase. Another relaxation of 
the strict rule of the order can be seen in the division of the infirmary 
into private chambers, possibly soon after 1300. The fire-places can 
still be seen in the aisles.‘ 

The last century of the life of the English Cistercian monasteries 
saw considerable building activity. Whalley built a great new 
gate-house in 1480. Under its last abbot anew abbot’s house was built 
and the lady chapel reconstructed. The tower at Fountains was built 
under Abbot Huby (1494-1526). Furness also began a large tower but 
never finished it. Cleeve built a new frater and, most magnificent of 
all, Forde, from about 1520 onwards, builtits great new abbot’s house 
and gatehouse. If Kirkstall could not equal this magnificence it at least 
had its share in the wave of new building. During the fifteenth century 
considerable alterations were carried out to the church. The roof was 
lowered, the gables remodelled and the great east window of the 
presbytery inserted as well as new windows in the nave and transepts. 
Under Abbot William Marshall (1509-27) the tower was raised in 
height to accommodate a belfry. 

'10'The date was confirmed by the excavators, Kirkstall Abbey Excavations, 1955-59, 
pp. x1, 9: 

“Tbid: Pp: 5, 9: 

"2 Ibid., pp.29-30; and for the adjoining buildings, ibid., pp.31-34, 60-62, 79-82. 

"3 For the excavations in the infirmary area, see Kirkstall Abbey Excavations, 
1955-59, pp. 113-24; 1960-64, pp. 33-36. 


External Relations 

It was part of the whole purpose and raison d’étre of the Cistercian 
order that the life of its communities should be lived apart from the 
world. Its houses were built remote from the habitations of men, 
and its statutes, drawn up at a time when the Church’s reaction 
against lay control was at its height, were intended to provide for 
self-sufficient communities whose dependence on the outside 
world was reduced to an absolute minimum, ideally only 
dependence on the bishop for orders. It will be the purpose of this 
chapter to discover in what ways a Cistercian house, and Kirkstall 
in particular, was nevertheless brought into contact with the world 
outside its walls and, where possible, to establish what were the 
effects of those contacts upon the life of the community. 

Relations with the King 

While the great houses of the Benedictine order held their lands by 
military service or were tenants-in-chief of the king, the Cistercian 
houses almost invariably held land in frankalmoin' and were thus 
spared a great deal of the involvement in secular affairs which 
military tenure brought with it. Furthermore, in contrast to the 
Benedictines, or the Austin Canons, the king was involved in the 
foundation of few Cistercian houses.” In Cistercian houses he was 
therefore not in a position to exercise such rights as custody during 
vacancy or assent in abbatial elections. An unscrupulous king could 
and did seize Cistercian property and make heavy financial 
demands on Cistercian houses. Even in more normal times 
hospitality for royal servants might be demanded but the king 
might also provide protection and encouragement in times of 

The monks of Kirkstall first learned how heavy the king’s hand 
might be in the reign of Henry II. Shortly after the monks had 
established themselves at Kirkstall they had been granted land at 
Bardsey and Collingham by Herbert de Moreville, who held land 
there of Roger de Mowbray. On this land the monks had 
established their grange of Micklethwaite which quickly became a 

‘For details of the implications of frankalmoin tenure, see above, pp.23-24. 
Two only: Beaulieu was founded by John in 1204 and Henry III shared with Peter 
des Roches, bishop of Winchester, in the foundation of Netley in 1239. 


valuable part of their endowment. After the revolt of 1173-74 the 
whole of the Bardsey and Collingham land was taken into the 
king’s hands and the grange confiscated. The loss of Micklethwaite 
was a severe blow to the monks and even caused a temporary 
dispersion, though the writer of the Fundacio admits that this took 
place chiefly in order to persuade the king to restore the land.} In 
spite of this and of Abbot Ralph’s offers of presents of a gold chalice 
and a text of the gospels, Henry II would not restore the land to the 

It is difficult to account for the king’s determined antagonism 
towards the abbey in this matter. It was unusual for the king to 
seize. lands» @ranted to a religious. house, ands Henry [bad 
specifically confirmed the grant and taken the house under his 
protection. Roger de Mowbray had been implicated in the 
rebellion and possibly also Richard de Moreville. The editor of the 
Coucher Book suggests> that active sympathy with de Moreville on 
the part of the abbot might have provided the special reason for the 
king’s displeasure. The writer of the Fundacio says that the king’s 
action was taken in order to spite Roger de Mowbray.°® 

It was John who eventually restored the grange to the monks, 
through the efforts of Abbot Helias and Roger de Lacy.’ John 
would only agree, however, on condition that the abbot took the 
whole Bardsey and Collingham fee at an annual rent of £90.° The 
abbey accepted these conditions, and the land remained with them 
until the Dissolution. The disposal of this rent caused more 
communications between the king and the monastery than any 
other subject except the statute of mortmain. The abbot was often 
instructed to pay it direct to someone named by the king and it was 
so used, for example, to support John’s foundation of Beaulieu.°® 

John is remembered, however, more for his demands on the 
Cistercians than for his grants to them.’® From the exactions of 
1210 it has been said"! that only two foundations — Beaulieu and 
Margam — escaped, so it 1s likely that Kirkstall suffered. The writer 

3Fundacio, p.183. 

‘Herbert de Moreville’s grant is included by name in Henry II’s charter of 
confirmation, CB, p.214. For Henry’s grant of protection, see CB, p.215. 

*CB, ps278. 

°Fundacio, p.182. 

7Fundacio, pp.184-85. 

‘CB, pp.218-19. 

CCK 1227-31 ap.7 3. 

'John’s relations with the Cistercians are described in detail in Knowles, MO, 
pp. 366-70. 

"Knowles, MO, p.368. 


of the Fundacio blames John for the loss of the grange at Hooton 
Pagnell,'* but the Coucher Book includes the fine by which Abbot 
Helias relinquished all interest in Hooton Pagnell in return for 
recognition of the abbey’s rights in Adel." It was nearly a century 
before Kirkstall again suffered severely from royal demands."4 

There were, however, other and less onerous ways in which the 
king might require money or services of the abbey. In 1304, after 
the surrender of Stirling Castle, Kirkstall was ordered to provide 
four horses, a cart and two men to help carry Edward I’s treasure 
from York back to Westminster; in 1310 Kirkstall, with other 
houses, was ordered to provide victuals for Edward II’s Scottish 
campaign. Once again, in 1349, transport was needed to help move 
the chancery rolls in Westminster and a suitable horse was found at 
Kirkstall. In 1332 Edward III asked for a subsidy to help defray the 
cost of his sister Eleanor’s marriage to Reginald, count of 
Flanders-Geulders,'> and in 1430 Henry VI demanded £10 towards 
the repayment of a loan by the city of London.” 

The king also expected monasteries to provide lodging for 
retired royal servants. There were always one or two, but never 
more than two, royal corrodians at Kirkstall from 1305 to about 
1433.'7 They were, it seems, usually men who had occupied minor 
positions in the royal household. 

The third way in which the king was brought into contact with 
the abbey was through actions in the courts or through the 
departments of state. The most numerous came about as a 
consequence of the passing of the statute of mortmain. Between 
1306 and 1410 twenty-eight licences to alienate into mortmain are 
known to have been issued to Kirkstall, concerning altogether 
sixty-five different pieces of land, rent or, in one case, the 
appropriation of the church of Bracewell." 

Three examples are recorded of the grant of pardon by the king 
in cases in which the abbot or the convent was concerned. In 1371 
the king pardoned Stephen, a lay-brother, for having killed the 
wicar- ot Sandal’s“servant and wounded the vicar himself, The 
incident referred to is presumably that in 1366 in which Abbot John 
Topcliffe was implicated." 

'? Fyundacio, p.187. 

"CB. -pp.9=10. 

'4See above, pp.44-45. 

CCR, 1302-07, p.2245°1307-13, Pp. 201; 1349-54, pp.34, $4; 1330-33, p.587- 
'°CPR, 1429-36, p.62. 

“Ror the abbots protest, see CB, p.280. 

'SCPR, passim. For reference to the church at Bracewell, see CPR, 1345-48, p.431. 
'9CPR, 1370-74, p.158; 1364-67, pp. 362-63. 


The other two cases involve men who were opposed to the 
abbot. In 1391 the king pardoned Thomas de Rothelay for failing to 
answer a charge of trespass and in 1393 three men were pardoned 
who had released from the stocks one, John Bull, who had stolen 
from the abbot twenty-nine sheep valued at 28s.”° 

Two long disputes between the king and the abbey occupy many 
pages in the Coucher Book and are also described in detail in the 
Patent Rolls.*! The king was brought into the first of these by his 
resumption of the Blackburnshire lands after the attainder of 
Thomas, earl of Lancaster, in 1322, to whom they had passed after 
the extinction of the: maletine of the de Lacy famuly im 1310, Part 
of these lands had been granted by Edward III to Queen Isabella 
shortly after his accession. 

The story begins with a petition from the abbot and convent to 
the king to point out that Blackburnshire had been granted to the 
abbey in frankalmoin, free of all earthly services, and requesting 
that they should therefore be exempt from claims for puture on 
these lands. The king ordered his own chief forester, Robert de 
Dalton, and Queen Isabella’s steward, John Giffard, to cease 
demanding puture of the abbey. John Giffard replied that puture 
had been received since the time of John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln 
(who died in 1240). Giffard was again ordered to stop his demands 
and this time the instructions were passed to the keeper of the 
queen’s lands? and presumably obeyed. 

The second dispute lasted much longer and was not settled out of 
court. It arose through the addition by the earl of Lincoln of 840 
acres of wood, moor and pasture to his forest of Blackburnshire 
just before 1300.*4 This forest came into the king’s hands with the 
rest of the earl of Lancaster’s possessions in 1322 and in 1329 the 
abbot, William of Driffield, petitioned for restoration of common 
rights on this land.*5 His petition was opposed by the 
representatives of the king and Queen Isabella. The land lay half in 
Lancashire and half in Yorkshire. Proceedings in respect of the 
Lancashire land were quashed, but it was not until 1335 that the 
sheriff was ordered to give the abbot seisin of the land in 
“CPR, 1389-92, p.284; 1392-96, p.263. 

*CB, pp.353-64, 321-39; CPR, 1327-30, p.528; 1330-34, pp:50,- 70; 330-40: 

athe descent is shown in the diagram in G.E.C., Complete Peerage, VII, 677. 
“CB, p.3$4, undated. CB, pp.363, 355, 356, 357, 359: 
“CB, p3326 
CB ap. ane 
"CB, pp-338- 39: 


Relations with the king did not always operate against the 
abbey’s interests, as much of this chapter might suggest. Each 
king, from Henry II to Edward I, took Kirkstall under his 
protection,’’ and this general protection might be renewed for a 
specific period if the house were in particular difficulties. In 
1276, for example, royal protection was granted for five years to 
Kirkstall Abbey ‘which is in debt’.** A custodian was also 
appointed, as was commonly done, even with exempt houses, in 
the case of debt.*? In this case the king seems particularly to have 
considered the susceptibilities of the house by appointing as 
custodian the abbey’s own patron, Henry de Lacy. 

Letters of protection were granted to the abbot when he went 
abroad to attend meetings of the general chapter of his order?° 
and in 1323 to the abbot ‘in his grange of Loftesclogh’.3’ The 
reason is not known. 

The king might also use his influence to encourage the abbey’s 
trade. Both Henry II and Richard I granted exemption from 
various tolls ‘for themselves, their animals and their goods’3? and 
in 1224 Henry III ordered all his harbour-bailiffs to see that ships 
carrying wool from Kirkstall and Fountains were not interfered 
with, or allowed to suffer injury.*3 

It is clear from the relationships described above that the 
connection between the king and a Cistercian house were of a 
very different kind from those which existed between the king 
and a black monk abbey. Whereas the king’s relations with the 
Benedictine houses were based on feudal law and custom and 
were therefore of a formal kind, the king could only interfere in 
the affairs of a Cistercian house by acting irregularly, as it seems 
did Henry II and John in their dealings with Kirkstall, or by 
pressing his: vaguely defined claim to a kind of general 
patronage. The intrusion of royal corrodians into Cistercian 
houses -may be regarded as an extension of this clam. The 
opportunities for friction were thus much less and the resulting 
situation shows that the Cistercians had to some extent achieved 

M™Aenry Wi7CB, p.215; Richard || CB, p.216; johm-as Count of Mortain, CB, 
pes, 4s kine, CB, p/200, Henry Hl, Diedale, MA, WV, 536. 

CPR, 1272-81, p.170. 

* Ibid., p.171; see also, S. Wood, English Monasteries and their Patrons in the 
Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1955), p.96. 

Ee Ot 202-1301, p).51.55- 1527-30, Pal. 

“Presumably Woscoe, neat Pontefract, CPR, 1321-24, p.345. 

* CB, ps2t0. 

33 PR, 11216=25, p.4d9. 


their aim of excluding lay influence from the conduct of their 

Relations with the Patron 

The patron of an English monastery was normally the founder or 
his heir and the endowment of a monastery was regarded very 
much as the enfeoffment of a tenant. The chief right which the 
patron enjoyed was the right of taking the house into his custody 
during a vacancy and of licence and assent in elections. In the 
Cistercian order custody during a vacancy was ruled out and the 
constitution of the order expressly forbade lay interference in 
abbatial elections.** 

As exemplified in the surviving documents relating to Kirkstall 
Abbey the patron’s particular role was in the smoothing of relations 
with the outside world in temporal matters. H. M. Colvin’s 
description of the patron of a Premonstratensian house will serve 
well to describe the kind of relationship which emerges: ‘A patron, 
in the eyes of the Church, was a person chosen by a monastic house 
to protect its interests in the secular sphere and generally to use his 
influence to promote its welfare and safeguard its endowments.’35 

Patronage of Kirkstall Abbey remained in the de Lacy family 
from the founder, Henry de Lacy, at least unl. the-=male tive 
disappeared with the death of Henry de Lacy in 1310, and passed 
into the hands of the dukes of Lancaster, who succeeded to the de 
Lacy estates. Henry de Lacy’s part in the foundation of the house 
has already been told.3° He was not a great donor of land, but he 
probably persuaded others to give, he helped to smooth out the 
difficulties which arose between the house and Hugh Bigod, earl of 
Norfolk, by securing the intervention of the king. He also helped in 
other ways. ‘Henry de Lacy stood by [Abbot Alexander], now 
providing the fruits of harvest, now supplying money as the needs 
of the establishment required. He had in part provided the 
buildings, laid with his own hand the foundations of the church and 
himself completed the whole fabric at his own cost.’3” 

On Henry’s death this valuable relationship was continued 
through Robert, his son. He gave land much more generously than 
his father had done. Fountains and Selby received grants from him 
and Kirkstall was granted Riston in Bowland, with generous 

3#P. Guignard, Monuments primitifs de la regle Cistercienne (Dijon, 1878), p.82. 
35H. M. Colvin, The White Canons in England (Oxford, 1951), p.291. 

38 See above, pp.4, 7-11. 

37 Fundacio, pp.179—-80. 


pasture rights,3® all Accrington,?? land in Snydale*® and houses in 
Wentbridge and Pontefract.’ Robert brought to justice the men 
who had attacked and killed three lay-brothers at the grange of 
Accrington during the time of Abbot Lambert.*? With Robert’s 
death the direct male line of the de Lacys came to an end. The 
estates passed to Aubreye, his cousin, who in 1194* granted the 
honour of Pontefract to her grandson, Roger, son of John, 
constable of Chester. 

As was usual, when land changed hands, the patronage of any 
monasteries included in it passed with it, unless expressly 
excluded.#4 Roger, having overcome his personal dislike of Abbot 
Helias, helped the monastery to recover the grange of Mickle- 
thwaite, taken from them by Henry II.*° 

In 1276, when the house was heavily in debt, it was Henry de 
Lacy, earl of Lincoln, whom the king appointed as its custodian 
until pressure of the king’s business made it necessary for someone 
else to succeed him.*° The financial details are given above.‘ It does 
not appear that Henry was ungenerous. The abbey surrendered 
land and rents to an annual value of £41 7s. 9d. in return for an 
annual sum from the exchequer at Pontefract of £53 6s. 8d., while 
to meet their immediate needs the earl loaned 525 marks for which 
550 marks would eventually be repaid. 

Relations between monastery and patron did not, however, 
always run smoothly. Shortly after this financial settlement the 
ear, for a reason that is’ not clear, took into his forest of 
Blackburnshire a large tract of the monastery’s possessions, 
involving the abbey in a long and expensive law-suit with the king, 
for the de Lacy land passed into the king’s hands with the attainder 
of the earl of Lancaster in 1322.4° Possession of the whole was not 
regained until 1340 or later. 

It would be expected that the patronage of Kirkstall would pass 
to the Lancaster family with the honour of Pontefract. The only 
evidence that this did in fact happen is contained in a petition to the 

FCB, Pstoo: 

CB. p- 190: 

CB, p. 140. 

EGU 202: 

” Fundacio, pp.184-85. 

43G.E.C., Complete Peerage, v.s. Lincoln. 
4 Wood, pp.12-25. 

45 See above,-p.62. 

4° CPR, 1272-81, p.171. 

47See above, pp.43—44. 

48 The law-suit is described above, p.64. 


king in respect of corrodies, from a date between 1352 and 1362, 
in which the abbey is described as ‘de la fundacion Henry de Lascy 
iadis Seignour de Pontfrait, et du patronage Henri, Duke [sic] de 
Lancastre’.°° It was through the interest of John of Gaunt, duke of 
Lancaster, “that the abbey eamed its larcest accession et Tana, 
Following a disastrous fire the abbey of Aumale, near Amiens, sold 
its dependent priory of Burstall, in Holderness. Through negotia- 
tions conducted by John of Gaunt, the priory, with all its lands and 
churches, was acquired by Kirkstall for 10,000 pounds tours.>! 

It is reasonable to ask what return patrons gained for themselves 
for the services they petformed for the monastery. The return 
expected would be mainly in the form of spiritual services — masses 
for the dead members of the patron’s family’? or admission to 
confraternity.°3 There is no evidence that either of these things 
happened at Kirkstall, but application was made to the general 
chapter of 1258 that they might celebrate each year the anniversary 
of their founders.54 Members of the founder’s family were often 
buried in the monastery. Of the de Lacy family, only Robert, who 
died in 1193, is known to have been buried at Kirkstall.°> In many 
monasteries, including several Cistercian houses, an account was 
kept of events in the founder’s family, and this was sometimes 
incorporated in the cartulary. The Kirkstall Coucher Book contains 
an account of the constables of Chester.*° 

Relations with other Cistercian Houses 3 

It was lad down in the*scatutes of the ‘Cistercian <order that 
mother-houses should visit their daughters annually and that the 
abbot of every daughter-house should pay a return visit each year 
to the mother-house.’? The ordinary life of the order would 
therefore bring houses into contact with each other quite often, 

GB, p.280. 

‘©The document is unreliable in some respects; John’s grant of Micklethwaite is 
described as being in free alms. The grant, CB, pp.218-19, is clearly at fee-farm. 

s'T), Mathew, The Norman Monasteries and their English Possessions (1962), p.118. The 
pound tours was worth about one-quarter of the pound sterling. 

? Wood, pp. 131-35. 

Sid. p12 7. 

54Canivez, Il, 444. 

‘sDugdale, MA, V, 534. Other members of the family were buried at their later 
foundation of Stanlaw. The Coucher Book of Whalley Abbey, ed. W. A. Hutton, 
Chetham Society, X (1847), 1, 180. 

S°CB, pp.237-43. 

‘7 Knowles, MO, p.262. 


apart from the meeting of the abbots at the general chapter. One of 
the most valuable sources that students of Cistercian institutions 
could have would be the records of these visitations, but they are 
apparently not in existence either in England, or at Citeaux.** As 
far as Kirkstall is concerned the evidence that these regulations were 
in fact carried out is very scanty. On only four occasions can it be 
shown clearly that the abbot of Fountains was present in his 
daughter-house, and only one of these was an ordinary visitation 
—that of Abbot Robert Thornton in 1301.59 A similar visitation 
could well have been the occasion for the business that brings the 
other visits to our notice. 

In 1284 Henry, abbot of Fountains, was present for the election 
of Abbot Hugh Grimston.® It would appear that an ordinary 
visitation was carried out on this occasion, as the condition of the 
house is recorded. A chance phrase in a document in the Coucher 
Book®! shows that the abbot of Fountains was at Kirkstall in 1336 
when he received ‘in the abbot of Kirkstall’s private room’ the 
homage of Miles de la Haye for lands at Hunslet. The last known 
occasion was when Abbot John Ripon of Fountains visited 
Kirkstall in 1432 in the company of the visitors from the general 
chapter, the abbot of Clairvaux and the abbot of Theolocus, and 
received the resignation of Abbot John de Colyngham.” 

The abbot of Kirkstall’s return visit could of course have been 
made without leaving any record, since no formal visitation was 
involved. The abbots of the daughter-houses were required to be 
present at the election of a new abbot of the mother-house. The 
only such occasion when the abbot of Kirkstall is known to have 
been at Fountains is the disputed election of 1411.°) Abbot 
Turgisius appears as witness to a grant of land to Fountains in about 
1200, but this of course did not necessarily involve his presence 

That relations between the mother and daughter were not always 
as good as they should have been is indicated by the appointment 
by the general chapter of 1280 of the abbots of Rufford and 

S$]. Richard, ‘Les Sources Bourguignonnes de l’histoire d’ Angleterre: La custodie de 
Scarborough et la péche en mer du Nord au XIII™° siécle’, Moyen Age, LII 
(1946), 257n. 

‘9 Fundacio, pp.203—04. 

°° Fundacio, pp. 188-89. 

CB pom. 

% Canivez, IV, 388. 

Jacob, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains’, p.8r. 

SS EBYVC- IM. 340. 



Rievaulx to enquire into a rebellion by the monks of Kirkstall 
against their father, the abbot of Fountains, and ‘the conspiracy that 
has arisen among them’.®> 

The authority of the abbot of Fountains is illustrated by his 
confirmation in 1401 of indulgences granted to Kirkstall by the 
pope allowing the entry of women into the church on certain days, 
provided that they were not Me by the abbot or the monks, to 
visit other parts of the monastery. 

In July 1279 the abbots of Rievaulx and Byland met at Kirkstall 
to enquire into a dispute between Fountains and Salley about 
boundaries.°7 Abbot Alexander and his monk, Serlo, witnessed a 
grant to Rievaulx of iron smithies and ore-bearing land at Blacker, 
in Upper Hoyland. 

In 1228 the abbot was ordered by the king to pay to the royal 
foundation of Beaulieu the £90 fee-farm from Bardsey and 

Relations with the Secular Church 

(a) With the Diocesan 

The ecclesiastical independence of a Cistercian house was as secure 
as its financial independence. From almost the earliest times the 
order had been under the direct protection of the papacy.”° The 
diocesan bishop had no part in the election of abbots nor did he 
enjoy the right of visitation. 

The archbishop of York, as Kirkstall’s diocesan, did, however, 
enjoy the abbey’s hospitality on a number of occasions. On his first 
visitation of the diocese he was entitled to claim it. Such a visit was 
made after due notice had been given. Thomas Corbridge 
(archbishop 1300-04) gave notice of his intended visit on 31 May 
1301 and arrived at the abbey on 20 June of the same year.7! 
William Greenfield (1306-15) gave notice on 15 May 1307 and 
arrived on 3 June.” Henry Bowet (1407-23) spent Ascension Day 
1408 at the abbey”} and John Kempe was there on 26 March 1441.74 

°’ Canivez, III, 200. 

°° Mem. Fountains, SS, XLII (1863), 205. 

*7Cartulary of the Cistercian Abbey of Fountains, ed. W. T. Lancaster, I (1915), 

SEY C. My 363: 

OCCR, 1227-31, p.73- 

Knowles, MO, p.209. 

™ Reg. Cororidge, p.51. 

” Reg. Greenfield, Il, xxi. 

7 Reg. Bowet and Kempe, p.138. 

7 Tbid., p.249. 


Hospitality was also received, though not perhaps as a right, on 
other occasions. Archbishop Greenfield, for example, was at 
Kirkstall in November 131075 and again in October 1313.7 

The archbishop retained the right to visit churches appropriated 
to the monastery. Archbishop Bowet visited Bracewell in 140977 
and in the same year the East Riding churches which Kirkstall had 
acquired with Burstall.”* 

The institution of incumbents to appropriated churches was 
carried out by the diocesan. For example, Michael de Torenton 
was instituted to Bracewell by Archbishop Gray in 1229,7 
and Thomas de Bridesale to the same church by Archbishop 
Romeyn in 1296,*° both on the presentation of the abbot and 

There are several examples in the archbishops’ registers of 
professions of obedience by a newly-elected abbot. Abbot Hugh 
Grimston made his profession to Archbishop Romeyn in 1289," 
apparently five years after he became abbot, John de Bridesale to 
Archbishop Corbridge in 1304*? and Walter to Archbishop 
Greenfield in 1314.*3 In this last example the names of the monks 
who brought to the archbishop confirmation of the abbot’s election 
are also given — Simon de Fymere and William de Leeds. 

The monks might come before the archbishop for ordination as 
priests. In 1273 William of York, Hugh of Bilton, William of 
Hawton and Hugh Grimston, later abbot, were examined in Blyth 
parish church for this purpose." 

Misdemeanours occasionally brought the convent to the 
archbishop’s notice. Corbridge excommunicated the monk Henry 
of Hoveden for leaving the monastery without permission.*’ In 
1314 the abbot and convent were called to account before the 
archdeacon for admitting parishioners of Leeds to the small chapel 
on the first floor of the gate-house and for having allowed others to 
be buried in the monastery.*° 

75 Reg. Greenfield, IV, 85. 
7° Reg. Greenfield, V, 29. 
77 Reg. Bowet and Kempe, p.157. 
Plbid.« p.082. 

7” Reg. Gray, p.33. 

8° Reg. Romeyn, I, 146. 
Ibid. pe8s- 

*2 Reg. Corbridge, p.112. 
°3 Reg. Greenfield, II, 183. 
*4 Reg. Giffard, p.197. 

*S Reg. Corbridge, p. 111. 
8° Reg. Greenfield, I, 177. 


In 1308 the abbot and convent appeared before the archbishop at 
Bridlington on a charge that they had ‘occupied and held the church 
of Gilkirk as 1f it were a parish church’ by erecting a baptistery and 
permitting burials there. The church of Bracewell claimed that 
Gilkirk was’a chapel.*? The case was held over to be heard at 
Cawood and its conclusion does not appear. 

(b) With Appropriated Churches 

The founders of the Cistercian order had renounced explicitly any 
income from ecclesiastical sources, such as ‘churches, altars or 
tithes,** but, though in the early days such gifts were occasionally 
refused, as early as about 1170 Alexander III felt it necessary to 
address a circular to Cistercian houses ordering them to observe 
their constitutions in this matter." 

It has already been shown how Kirkstall Abbey had come to 
possess, in its early days, the vill of Barnoldswick, and how the 
church at Barnoldswick had been destroyed.” In order to make 
some compensation to the villagers for the loss of their church 
Archbishop Murdac had ordered the chapels of Bracewell and 
Marton, which had been in the parish of Barnoldswick, to be raised 
to the status of parish churches.°' As the archbishop died m 
October 1153 and the order refers to the monks of Kirkstall, 
not of Barnoldswick, the change can be dated, with reasonable 
certainty to the summer of 1153. In 1222, or soon after, Richard de 
Tempest granted the advowson of Bracewell to the abbey,” and 
the first record’ of the imstitutton of an imcumibent sat othe 
abbey’s presentation, Michael de Torenton, occurs in 1229. 

Not all the abbey’s candidates for presentation to Bracewell were 
in full orders. Thomas de Bridesale was instituted to the living as a 
sub-deacon in December 1294.%4 It would be interesting to know 
whether Thomas had any connection with John de Bridesale, who 
became abbot in 1304. Both Thomas de Bridesale and Henry de 
Berwick were granted by Archbishop Romeyn custody of 
sequestration of the parish while they were still acolytes. 

‘7 Reg. Greenfield, V, 208. 
88 Guignard, p.252. 
*°Knowles, MO, p.355. 
2 See ABOVE) (055: 

MEY G.. lil, 192. 

EC, Vil, 246: 

2) Reg. Gray, p33: 

** Reg. Romeyn, 1, 141. 
SIbtd., pp-14l, 97. 


Robert Risseton (or Rushton) was instituted to Bracewell on 8 
October 1306 on the presentation of the abbot and convent.” In 
1308 Nicholas de Stokton successfully challenged the appoint- 
ment on the basis of his papal provision to the benefice.%’ 
Risseton was ordered to vacate the church and refund revenues,” 
and. -on 27 March A320 Stokton took the.oath of canonical 
obedience to the archbishop for Bracewell.” Risseton became 
rector of Adel in 1309.'° This provides an interesting illustration 
of how papal provision could over-ride the rights of an 
ecclesiastical patron even after formal induction and institution 
had taken place. 

In 1347 a vicarage was ordained at Bracewell by Archbishop 
Zouche after permission had been given by the king to alienate 
into mortmain.’*' The archbishop took an annual pension for 
himself of £1 10s. od. and ss. annually for the dean and chapter. 
The vicar was to be presented by the abbot and convent who 
would build, at their own cost, ‘a competent mansion-house’. 
The vicar would be paid seven marks per annum, a figure well 
below that considered adequate by the fourth Lateran Council. 
The vicar would provide lights for the altar and the monastery 
would bear all other burdens, ordinary and extraordinary, repairs 
and new buildings of chancel, archdiaconal procurations, 
synodals and tenths for the taxation of the church. On two 
occasions, in 1459 and 1491, presentation to the living lapsed to 
the archbishop. '” 

The Tempests did not lose their interest in Bracewell church. 
A chantry was built at the east end, probably during the reign of 
Henry VII, a north aisle was added, the pillars of which bear the 
niche on their western face characteristic of “Tempest’ churches. 
After the Dissolution the family again acquired the advowson 
and the last presentation made by a Tempest was in 1593. 

The church of Marton had passed, before 1219, to Bolton 
Priory but a pension of 20s. was paid to Kirkstall in recognition 
of its interest in it.’ 

°° Calendar of Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters II, 
A.D. 1305-1342, ed. W. H. Bliss (1895), p.45. 

7 1bid. 

8 Ibid. 

° Reg. Greenfield, I, 78. 

mW. I. Lancaster “Adel’,PTh:S, 1V (1895), 280. 

PINE PIE 1945-46, p-430. 

'2'These details are taken from T. D. Whitaker, History and Antiquities of the 
Deanery of Craven, 2nd edn (1912), p.102. 

PPEYVC,| VIL. 240: 


The position of Gilkirk, or St Mary-le-Gill, is an interesting one. 
The church stands in a beautiful hollow about one and a half miles 
from Barnoldswick towards Thornton, on what was probably the 
very edge of the land held by Kirkstall in that area. The oldest part 
of the present church 1s late medieval and there 1s a date, interpreted 
as. 1524, off the south face of the tower: There was almost 
certainly, however, a church or chapel on the site at an earlier date. 
No church is mentioned in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas of 1291 
nor does there appear to be any reference in the diocesan registers to 
the institution of an incumbent. It seems possible that the church 
was built by or for the parishioners of Barnoldswick in 
compensation for the loss of their own parish church and that it was 
perhaps served by the monks. This view is supported by the case, 
brought before the archbishop in 1308, in which the monks were 
accused by the vicar of Bracewell of trying to raise their ‘chapel’ 
of Gilkirk into a parish church.'°’ The land surrounding the 
church would have been in Bracewell parish. The church is there 
referred to as ‘appropriated’, but no vicarage appears to have been 

In 1456 the church of Middleton-in-Pickering was appropriated 
to Kirkstall and a vicarage ordained.'°° The archbishop reserved 
annually to himself £1 to pay for repairs to his cathedral, and $s. for 
the dean and chapter, and made provision for distribution to the 
poor of Middleton at Easter and Christmas. The abbey was again 
required to provide a competent mansion. The vicar’s share was on 
this occasion rather higher — £10 — and he also received 6s. 8d. for 
the bread, wine and lights necessary for the high altar of his church. 

In 1359 Kirkstall had become the owner of several churches and 
chapels in Holderness, which had formerly belonged to the alien 
priory of Burstall,'°’ a cell of Aumale.'°* The churches were Burstall 
itself, Aldborough, Kilnsea, Owthorne, Paull, Skeckling and 
Withernsea, in all of which vicarages had already been ordained. By 
these grants Kirkstall came to possess more churches than any other 
Cistercian house, at least in Yorkshire.’ 

'4N. Pevsner, The Buildings of England. Yorkshire: the West Riding (Harmondsworth, 
1959), p.208. 

'°5 Reg. Greenfield, V, 208. 

J. Burton, Monasticon Eboracense (York, 1758), p.294. The circumstances of its 
acquisition are not known, but it was still held by the abbey at the Dissolution 
(Account 1539-40). 

'°7 The site of Burstall is said now to be under the sea. 

'8CPR, 1391-96, p.585. 

'9 A. Hamilton Thompson, The English Clergy and their Organization in the later 
Middle Ages (Oxford, 1947), pp.116—-17. 


Relations with other Orders 

Apart from the dissolution of the Templars, with which the abbot 
and abbey of Kirkstall were directly concerned, the abbey was 
brought into contact with other orders through disputes arising 
either out of the proximity of their lands, as at Bramhope with St 
Leonard’s Hospital, York; through difficulties arising from the 
transfer of land after the original grant, as at Keighley and 
Horsforth with Haverholm Priory; or about tithe, as at Leeds and 
Adeb with Holy Trinity Priory, York.** 

The abbot of Kirkstall was among those summoned to York by 
Archbishop Greenfield in May 1311 to give effect to Clement V’s 
order to suppress the Knights Templar. The abbey was one of 
twenty-four in the province of York ordered to receive a Templar 
when he had confessed and been absolved. By 1312, however, 
tie) Nentplae at Kirkstall” had been allowed to escape,’ 
and the vicar-general gave strict orders that they should 
recapture him within a month or ecclesiastical censures would 
be published throughout the diocese of York.''? The sequel is 
not recorded. 

Relations with St Leonard’s Hospital, York, seem to have been 
bad, partly through the proximity of their lands at Bramhope and 
partly through the hospital’s claim for thraves, that is, twenty 
sheaves of corn for every plough in the diocese of York. This claim, 
based on a grant said to have been made by King Athelstan in 936, 
was the cause of frequent disputes, but was resolutely upheld 
by successive popes.'™? Kirkstall’s quarrel, and that of other 
Cistercian abbeys in Yorkshire, arose in 1225 following the 
legislation of the fourth Lateran Council. An arrangement was 
arrived at before the dean and chapter of York, the archdeacon and 
other ecclesiastics, by which the abbeys would continue to pay 
thraves on land acquired after 1215 if it had been paid by the previous 
owner before that date, this presumably exempting land newly 
brought under cultivation after that date.'™ 

In 1274 the mill at Bramhope was leased to the master of St 
Leonard’s,''> but in 1299 the abbot took action against Walter, 
bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, then master, for laying waste 

"© The abbey’s relations with other churches were concerned almost entirely with 

"t Reg. Greenfield, 1V, 364; V, xxx1x. 

2 Reg. Greenfield, V, 1-2. 

"3 VCH, Yorkshire, Ill, 336. 

“4 CB, pp. 206-68: 

"8°CB, pp. 5V—XV1. 


houses and gardens in Bramhope which the abbey had leased for a 
numberof years to a former master?” 

In 1377, on the petition of the master (a royal clerk), Edward III 
appointed a commission to hear charges against Abbot John (de 
Thornberg) who, in company with certain merchants, “Taillours’, 
and others, had entered houses and lands in York and elsewhere, 
breaking down and stealing trees, hunting game and attacking 

Kirkstall was brought into contact with the Gilbertine house of 
Haverholm through lands in Horsforth and lands and a mill in 
Keighley which Adam FitzPeter had granted to Haverholm, and 
the use of which had been made over to Kirkstall before 1162 at a 
rent-ot {4:'" In 1234, just after the, Everingham™tamily shad 
succeeded to Adam’s inheritance, the abbot of Kirkstall summoned 
the prior of Haverholm to show why he had not performed the 
services due to Margaret of Rivers, lady of Harewood and 
tenant-in-chief.''? This was only the beginning of a series of 
disputes’”° lasting until 1314 when it was adjudged that the abbot of 
Kirkstall might in future settle direct with the lord of Harewood in 
respect:of services duc, at Evermeham’s expense." 

The Abbot and the outside World 

The outside activities of the abbot of an important Cistercian house 
such as Fountains or Rievaulx, even within his own order, were 
such as to fill a considerable part of the year. He was obliged to visit 
the general chapter, to visit the daughters of his own house and to 
pay a visit to the monastery from which it had itself sprung — each 
of these annually.'** Having no daughters, Kirkstall was spared the 
second of these duties and the comparative proximity of Fountains 
lightened the burden of the third, but at least in earlier days there 
was no escaping the first of these duties. Monasteries in distant 
countries had obtained permission to attend less frequently, but the 
petition of the English abbots for a similar concession had been 
turned down in no uncertain manner. '*? 

"© Monastic Notes, I, ed. W. P. Baildon, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, 
XVII (1895). 

"7 CPR, 1377-81, p.95. The further activities of this abbot are recorded above, p.5o. 

"8 CB, pp.67-68. 

UCB. pp 12k 

20 Monastic Notes, I, 108, III. 

"CB, pp.227-28. 

'22 Knowles, MO, p.262. 

123 Canivez, lk. 272, Petitio .~ > nullatenus adnutitur . 


Only on three occasions is it possible to be reasonably certain 
that the abbot of Kirkstall was present at the general chapter. In 
1217 he brought news of the illness of the abbot of Rufford;'*4 in 
1300 royal protection was granted to the abbot ‘going to his general 
chapter’;'*5 and in 1327 William, abbot of Kirkstall, ‘going beyond 
the seas to the general chapter’, nominated two attorneys. '”° Royal 
protection was also granted in that year.'?’ 

There are, however, reasons for believing that the abbot attended 
more frequently than this. A letter from Hugh Grimston, abbot 
between 1284 and 1304, suggests that he was present at the chapter 
in 1287.'?® Petitions were presented in 1258 for permission to 
celebrate annually the anniversary of their founders'’? and in 1282 
for the dispersal of the community, "°° but though these might not 
of course have been presented in person, it is probable that they 
were. In 1300 and 1327, when the abbot did attend the chapter, 
royal protection was given. It is possible, therefore, that, when no 
special reason is given for the grant of royal protection for the 
abbot for a short period, he was attending the chapter. Such 
occasions would add 1312’ and 1322' to the list of possible 
attendances. The statutes do not confirm either of them. With the 
outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War references to English houses 
disappear from the statutes. The chapter seems to take a new 
interest in the English houses from 1409 onwards. In that year a 
visitation of them by the abbot of Pontigny was ordered'33 and in 
1410 the chapter ordered that they should send two abbots only to 
the chapter, one from each province, the remainder being excused 
as long as the wars should last.'34 In 1437 the English abbots were 
allowed by Pope Eugenius IV to celebrate a general chapter for 
themselves every three years either in England or in Wales."35 

Attendance at the general chapter often brought with it new 
duties, some of which must have involved a considerable 
expenditure of time. In 1214 the abbot of Kirkstall was directed to 

'4 Thid., p.469. 

’C PIR 1202-1301; p.515. 

WE CPR, 1327-30, p.132. 
NOG. poke 

28 Fundacio, p.189, ‘Finitis ad tempus capituli generalis angustiis de Simone’. 
9 Canivez, Il, 444: 

Ho Canivez, Ul, 212: 

GPK | 1307-13;,_p-43 5: 

MOC PRG 4321-24, pp. 35; 120. 
133 Camivez= TV. PLZ: 

161d @ IPs b 32 

Nid. \p-A2u: 


enquire into the quarrel between James the clerk and the abbot of 
Rufford.'3° As no abbot was deputed to inform him of the general 
chapter’s order, it may be that the abbot of Kirkstall was present on 
this occasion also. In 1264 the complaint of Dieulacres against Hulton 
was committed for investigation to the abbots of Roche, Kirkstall and 
Jervaulx.'3? That the abbot of Roche was deputed to inform his 
colleagues suggests that the abbot of Kirkstall was not present. In 1237 
the complaint of Stanley against Merevale was committed to Roche, 
Salley and Kirkstall, and the abbot of Combe was to inform them, "3° 
while in 1247 the settlement of the dispute between Calder and Holm 
Cultram was entrusted to the abbots of Kirkstall and Salley. 3° 

The nature of some of these disputes is illustrated by the case 
between Furness and Salley in 1220 which the abbots of Kirkstall 
and Byland were called upon to settle. The dispute had arisen about 
the proximity of granges at Winterburn and Stainton. The two 
abbots decided that both granges should remain and the parties in 
dispute accepted the decision ‘amicably’.'4° 

A later abbot of Kirkstall, John Topclifte, also found himself at 
Furness 1n 1367, on this occasion in the company of the abbots of 
Furness, Whalley, Holme and Salley, with a monk from Citeaux, 
to decide a dispute between the abbot and the monks. This time the 
abbots were ordered by the king to supervise the visitation. '4' The 
abbot is found as a witness to charters of other Cistercian houses, 
notably the grant of smithies and land bearing iron-ore at Blacker, 
in Upper Hoyland, to Rievaulx, witnessed by the first abbot, 
Alexander, and his*monk, Serlo.'4? 

In 1407 the abbot of Kirkstall, at the invitation of the abbots of 
Waverley and Furness, was joint president with the abbot of 
Thame: at a‘ chapter held at Combe Abbey.4? This was the-last 
called in England independently of the general chapter during the 
Great Schism, + 

BCanivez, |, 425. 

winCanivez, Il, 164. 

BP Tid. p-283: 

2 Ibid... 424. 

'4° The Coucher Book of Furness Abbey, Il, ed. John Brownbill, Chetham Society, 
LXXVI, 11(1916), 475. This case does not appear in Canivez, though the abbots 
claim the authority of the ‘domini Cisterciensis’ for their action. 

“4° CPR, 1364-67, p.404. 

'? EYC, Ill, 363-64, see also p.340 for witness to a grant of land to Fountains. 

‘8 The Coucher Book of Furness Abbey, Il, ed. John Brownbill, Chetham Society, 
LXXVIII, 111(1919), 699. 

'44On the effect of the Great Schism on English Cistercian houses, see Knowles, 
RO, Il, 168-69, or, more fully, Rose Graham, “The Great Schism and the English 
Monasteries of the Cistercian Order’, EHR, XLIV (1929), 373-87. 


The abbot was also called upon occasionally to intervene in the 
affairs of houses outside his own order. Thus Abbot Turgisius 
Went im 1106 sds ~papal delegate to the house of canons “at 
Guisborough to settle a dispute about tithe between that house and 
SeiManys, York. 

It has already been mentioned that the abbot was called upon to 
attene the trial of “the demplars--at York.’ He served’-as 
archbishop’s commissioner in the enclosure of a hermit at Beeston 
in 1294, although there had been an agreement that no anchorite or 
anchoress should be established there except by consent of the prior 
and monks of Holy Trinity, York.'*’ In the same year the abbot 
enclosed “Sibill de Insula» near the chapel, of Se Edmund, 
Doncaster. "4° 

The only parliament to which the abbot appears to have been 
summoned is the ‘de Montfort’ parliament of 1265, together with 
many other ecclesiastics of every order."49 Although Cistercian 
abbots were frequently summoned to attend parliament in 
Edward I’s reign'*° the abbot of Kirkstall does not appear among 
them.'5' He was, however, summoned to attend a royal council at 
York im. 1319:'** 

The abbot served as the king’s commissioner on at least two 
occasions, in I411 and 1496, when he received the homage of 
members of the Clifford family for their lands." 

The records that remain are too few to enable any complete 
picture of the abbot’s activities outside the monastery to be drawn 
from them. They do seem to emphasise, however, that Kirkstall 
was not a monastery of first importance. Compared with Fountains 
the number of occasions when its abbot was used by the general 
chapter was small. The abbot was not consulted by the 
ecclesiastical or secular authorities to any appreciable extent, and 
the number of occasions when he was used by them, when 
considered against a background of nearly 400 years of history, is 
small indeed. Unless the shortage of evidence is misleading us it 

145 Cartularium prioratus de Gyseburne, Il, ed. W. Brown, SS, LXXXIX (1894), 41. 

MoS ce Above, 0-75. 

7 Rey. Romeya, 1, 140; see also BYC, Ill, 281. 

48 Reg. Romeyn, I, 141. 

MACCK, 1204-08, p.86. 

0H, M. Chew, English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service (Oxford, 
1032) p17 4. 

‘5S! The name of the abbot of Kirkstall does not appear in Miss Chew’s source, The 
Lords’ Report on the Dignity of a Peer. 

HACCR, 1318—23;-p-.202. 

53 CCR, 1409-13, p.158; 1494-1509. 


would seem that the abbot could not have been unduly distracted 
from the business of his house by affairs outside it, while many of 
the duties in the outside world which he was required to perform 
were in the service of his order or of the Church as a whole. 

The Last Years 

Economic Change 

A comparison of the surviving rent-roll’ with figures given in the 
account for the year immediately following the Dissolution 
(1539-40)? makes possible some conclusions about the economic 
life of the abbey during the last eighty years of its history. 

Two points, however, must be noted. The Bardsey and 
Collingham lands are not shown in the 1459 rent-roll. In 1539-40 
they were producing rents of about £100, a net gain to the abbey of 
£10 per annum when the £90 fee-farm had been paid. Secondly, the 
years 1537-38 saw the leasing of almost all the abbey’s demesne 
lands. These two items must therefore be omitted from the account 
before comparisons are made. 

When this has been done two matters become immediately 
apparent — a large increase in income from rents to the extent of 
perhaps £39 annually and a considerably more effective exploitation 
of granges, which increased the total income from this source by 
some £24. Given a total income from rents of £358 in 1539 this 
means that a21.3 per cent increase had taken place. ‘Fhe increase in 
income from rents is partly from newly acquired land, notably in 
Leeds itself? and possibly at Seacroft, but also from an increase in 
rents from existing holdings, notably in Bramley, Armley and 

A number of granges which appear not to have been leased or let 
for rent in 1459 had been let by 1539. These included a second 
grange at Armley (Wether Grange had been let in 1459), New 
Lathe (Horsforth), Brearey, one of the abbey’s oldest granges, 
Chapel Allerton and a second grange at Allerton, Darrington and 

In the last year or so of the abbey’s history there was a very rapid 
leasing of almost all the abbey’s demesne lands, which lay mainly in 
West Headingley and Cookridge, but with the smaller amounts in 
Bramley, Eccup and Bardsey.* This process began in August 1537 
and was complete by the end of 1538. 

'‘A Rent-Roll of Kirkstall Abbey’, pp. 1-21. 

*Account 1539-40. 

3W.T. Lancaster, ‘The Possessions of Kirkstall Abbey in Leeds’, PTh.S, IV (1895), 

4The Kirkstall leases are in the Public Record Office, E303/23/Yorkshire, nos. 


Kirkstall appears to have been very late in leasing its lands on this 
scale. R. B. Smith’s conclusion, from his study of eight other 
Yorkshire houses of different orders was that nearly one-third of 
the leases had been granted before 1530.5 At Kirkstall, of the 
eighty-eight leases for which details are available only two had been 
granted by 1530 and it was 1538 before one-third of them had been 
granted. The close association of the last abbot with the Pilgrimage 
of Grace suggests a conservative attitude in the leadership of the 
house and it was perhaps the failure of the Pilgrimage of Grace and 
the beginning of the attack upon the larger houses which led to the 
conclusion that the old ways could not be re-established. Smith 
suggests that with the Dissolution approaching the monasteries 
were interested in quick financial gains and in acquiring goodwill 
among their neighbours.° 

G. W. O. Woodward sees the opportunity of extracting a fine 
from the lessee when leases were granted as one of the ways in 
which holders of estates ‘tried to meet the inflationary spiral of the 
sixteenth century’.? Smith has said that “There is nothing to show 
whether fines were levied in these late leases’.* The Kirkstall 
documents show clearly the payment of a fine or gressom in almost 
every case. The amount of the fine 1s rarely stated. The most usual 
term of a lease was forty years, but periods ranging from twenty to 
fifty-one years are found, and, occasionally, for life. 

Even in these last years, however, when nearly all its land had 
passed out of the abbey’s direct control, the overall picture still 
retained some distinctively Cistercian features. The Kirkstall 
accounts show only two whole manors out to farm in such a way 
that the tenants had no direct connection with the monastery. 
These were Lyngarth, near Huddersfield, isolated from the rest of 
the abbey’s possessions, and Clifford, near Wetherby, leased by 
John Chambers and William, his son. Their rents together totalled 
£22 and it is certainly not true of Kirkstall, as Knowles asserted in 
general terms, that, as between manors and separate tenancies, ‘the 
former accounted for the larger part of the income’.” 

The other feature which 1s perhaps distinctively Cistercian is the 

comparatively little dependence on ecclesiastical sources of 
revenue. At the Dissolution, excluding the churches acquired with 

SR. B. Smith, Land and Politics in the England of Henry VIII (Oxford, 1970), 

°Ibid., pp.81-83. 

7G. W. O. Woodward, The Dissolution of the Monasteries (1966), p.It. 

‘Smith, Land and Politics, p.1t. 

°*Knowles, RO, Ill, 250. 


Burstall Priory, Kirkstall was receiving the £30 farm of the rectory 
of Middleton, £6 13s. 4d., rent of lands pertaining to the rectory of 
Bracewell, and £15 16s. 8d. rent and farm of tithes in Barnolds- 
wick and the other vills in its parish — a total of £52 Ios. od., or 
about one-eighth of its income, less the £90 fee-farm of Bardsey 
and Collingham. Of this sum £4 13s. 4d. was paid to the curate 
at Gilkirk and £1 os. 6d. to York in synodals and procurations. 
The contrast with a Benedictine house can be seen by looking at 
Burstall Priory, which Kirkstall had acquired in 1396. There the 
income from churches made up about three-quarters of the 

Of the other sources of income the mining of minerals was 
confined to Horsforth and produced only 2s. 4d. in the year 
1539-40, by no means a typical year. The abbey owned smithies in 
Weetwood and Hesywell which were leased to Sir Robert Nevill 
in 1538, with permission to take as much wood as he needed to 
make charcoal.'! Mills yielded £21, mainly from Bar Grange, at 
Burley on the north bank of the Aire, where water-power was 
abundant. Included among the assets were over 3,000 acres of 
woodland,'* the value of which cannot be estimated and little 
of which was worked in the year of the surrender. The actual 
figures for woodland must be much higher as no figures 
are given for Bramley or Chapel Allerton. About two-thirds 
of the 3,000 acres was in Cookridge, but the wood of Hawks- 
worth, immediately west of the abbey site, accounted for 800 

Boon-work had been commuted to a money-payment at the rate 
of 3d. or 4d. per precaria, or in Bardsey galline (hens), which 
brought in £3 17s. oad. in the year 1539-40. The abbot collected 
the customary wapentake fine in certain areas, yielding 
£1 6s. 62d. The total income for the lands of Kirkstall for the 
years before the wholesale leasing of demesne might therefore 
appear as follows: 

‘Figures from the 1539-40 Account. The separate section for Burstall in this 
account and the omission of the Burstall properties from the 1459 rent-roll 
suggests that, although Burstall had been acquired in 1396, its accounts had 
been kept separate and had never been amalgamated with those of the parent 

Tease 378. PRO, E303/23 Yorkshire. The smithies were later held by Thomas 
Pepper, a former monk of Kirkstall. R. A. Mott has argued that the forge on the 
abbey site itself did not come into existence until c. 1600, “Kirkstall Forge and 
Monkish Iron-making’, PTh.S, LIII (1972), 160-66. 

'* Account 1539-40. 


Rents from lands and mills 348 
Rent from Bardsey and Collingham 
£100, less Lgo0 fee-farm IO 
Churches 52 
Boon-work, wapentake fines, say 5 

The commissioners compiling the Valor were to deduct 
allowances amounting to about 8 per cent of the total income of the 
house, '} leaving Kirkstall with a net income of £367 on which the 
tenth would be based." 

The Surrender of the House 

Of the late abbots of Kirkstall two were almost certainly members 
of local families with a long connection with the abbey and both 
were from the group of notable families which had become 
established in the Potter Newton area of Allerton by the end of the 
fourteenth century. The editor of the 1459 rent-roll, referring to 
John Killingbeck, a free tenant of Allerton, wrote, “His son joins 
the fraternity, and in due time becomes abbot’.' It seems likely that 
Abbot Killingbeck came of this family, but there is no firm 
evidence. There can be no doubt, however, that Abbot William 
Marshall came of the Allerton family of that name. Christopher 
Marshall of Potter Newton made his will in 1519'° and appointed 
‘my brother, the lord William Marshall, abbot of Kirkstall’ to 
supervise its execution and to approve the appointment of a priest 
who, for one year, should sing masses for the souls of his father and 
mother and ‘all cristyn saullys’. 

At the surrender the community consisted of abbot, prior, 
sub-prior and twenty-nine monks.” In addition to these, one other 
monk is known from the last years. His name is not recorded, but 
he is known to have been imprisoned in Pontefract Castle by 

'3 Knowles, RO, III, 242. 

'4Knowles, RO, III, 244, n.1, gives £336 for Kirkstall but does not explain how this 
figure was arrived at. Since calculations have been based on 1539-40, the year of 
surrender when economic activity was likely to have been below rather than above 
the normal level, one might have expected a figure of more rather than less than 

'S*A Rent-Roll of Kirkstall Abbey’, p.14. 

'©*Testamenta Leodiensia’ [1496-1524], p.146. 

CLP, 1530, Ul, 198. See A. Lonsdale, “The Last Monks of KurkstallMabbay< 
PTh.S, LHI (1972), 201-15. 


Thomas, Lord Darcy, as steward of Pontefract, for coining. The 
date was probably 1522.'* Where Kirkstall held whole townships it 
might be expected that the 1539 rent-roll would include the names 
of most of their inhabitants. A comparison of the names of the 
monks with the names of local families suggests few local 
connections. Of the thirty-two members of the community only 
six similar names appear on the rent-roll and this of course by no 
means proves a connection. Thomas Pepper, one of the junior 
monks,'? was the son of John Pepper, yeoman, of Bramley. It 1s 
possible that William Lupton was of the family of that name, also 
of Bramley.”° The prior was John Browne and there was a monk 
Gilbert Browne, while there were families of that name among the 
abbey’s tenants in Bramley and Horsforth. There were families by 
name Matthew in Eccup, and Sandall in Bramley,*' and there were 
Claightons in Bramley and Horsforth. 
Of the thirty early sixteenth-century wills of local residents 
published,** only three included bequests to the abbey. All of them 
were by tenants of the abbey, two by the Midgleys, who held Bar 
Grange, and one, dated 1503, by William Fawcett of Bar Grange. 
There were all of small amounts, either $s. or 4od. to the abbot and 
about 4d. to each member of the community. 
On 4 fumerrs35 Richard Layton petitioned Cromwell for a 
commission for himself and Dr Thomas Legh* to visit the 
monasteries of northern England.*4 The collection of the figures 
which make up the Valor had been undertaken earlier in the year 
and Layton realised that ‘far-sighted superiors had read the signs of 
the times and were acting accordingly’.*5 Disposal of stock, the 
selling or hiding of plate and precious stones and a process of 
leasing lands had already begun.*° It was not until the end of the 
year, however, that Layton received his commission and in the 
depths of the winter of 1535-36 Legh and Layton travelled over one 
thousand miles and visited 121 houses in northern counties.*”? They 
'®CLP, 1537, I, 66. From papers seized from Darcy when he was executed after the 
Pilgrimage of Grace. 

'?Pepper’s will is discussed below, p.89. 

*° Woodward, pp.150, 159; Account 1539-40. 

*1See below, pp.88-89, for the later history of Edward Sandall. 

2“Testamenta Leodiensia’ [1496-1524], pp.1-16, 139-47. 

*3For short biographies of these, the best-known of Cromwell’s visitors, see 
Knowles, RO, III, 270-73. 

*4 Thid., p.268. 

*S Thid. 

© See Knowles, RO, III, 268, but so far only a small part of Kirkstall’s property had 

been let on this kind of lease. See above, pp.81-82. 
*7Knowles, RO, Ill, 286 and Appendix VI, pp.476-77. 



came to Kirkstall from Fountains and Ripon and turned north again 
to visit Bolton and Jervaulx.** 

Dr Woodward has shown that the visitors achieved their 
remarkable speed of working partly by reducing their enquiry to 
tabular form and by concentrating on five items of information 
only.-“These iterns are: first; the names of those.monks«or nuns 
declared guilty of certain offences against the vow of chastity; 
secondly, the names of those who want to be released from their 
vows and leave the cloister; thirdly, what the visitors call the 
“superstition” of the house, that is to say the relic or relics held in 
special esteem there; fourthly, the name of the “founder” of the 
house, that is to say the living heir of the first benefactor who was 
regarded as having a hereditary and particular interest in the affairs 
of the convent; and lastly, in round figures, the income of the 
house, and, where applicable, its debts.’ The information 
collected could therefore be expressed very briefly and for Kirkstall 
it reads as follows: ‘3 sod. Girdle of St Bernard for lying-in. 
Founder, the King, Rents:329..2° 

Professor Knowles has discussed exhaustively the references to 
sexual offences in the visitors’ findings.’ A quick perusal of the 
entries for other houses shows that many of them possessed a girdle 
or tunic, generally named after one of the saints, which was 
presumably loaned to women to help them in child-birth. Bath had 
the ‘vincula Sancti Petri’; Grace Dieu, the girdle and tunic of St 
Francis; and Bromholm the girdle of St Mary.3? Kirkstall had 
passed to the earl of Lancaster through the marriage of the heiress, 
Alice Lacy, with Thomas of Lancaster ‘on or before 28 October 
1294’ and to the crown with the accession of the first Lancastrian 
king in 1399.3 

The visitations were complete by the end of February 1536; in 
April the process of dissolving the smaller houses began. Kirkstall’s 
near neighbours, the nunnery at Arthington and Holy Trinity 
Priory, York, which held the parish church of Leeds and collected 
tithe from the parish, were among those to go at this early stage. 
Sir Arthur Darcy, who later acquired Kirkstall property, was 
granted the Priory’s former possessions in Leeds. 

CLP rns aOo Kes ae) 

? Woodward, pp.32-33. See also Knowles, RO, III, 287-88. 

GLP. 1530, 142) 

3'Knowles, RO, III, 296-303. 

3? These examples are all included in extracts from the Visitors’ reports printed by 
Knowles, RO, III, 288. 

33R. Somerville, History of the Duchy of Lancaster, I (1953), pp.189, 138. 


At the end of 1536 the north of England was shaken by the 
Pilgrimage of Grace.34 The disturbances started in Lincolnshire in 
October 1536. There was a further rising in Yorkshire and York was 
occupied on 24 October. Thomas, Lord Darcy, Sir Arthur’s father 
and steward of Pontefract, surrendered the castle there and joined the 
rebels. A great council of ‘pilgrims’ was summoned to Pontefract on 2 
December and the clergy were to meet at Pontefract at the same time, 
in what some have called a ‘convocation’. John Ripley, last abbot of 
Kirkstall, and ‘one of the more learned of the northern clergy’,}5 was 
one of a small but distinguished group which met at the priory in 
Pontefract on 4 December and then retired to discuss questions and 
propositions first placed by Robert Aske before Archbishop Lee of 
York, who had also joined the rebels. John Dakyn, rector of Kirby 
Ravensworth and vicar-general of York, gave an eye-witness account 
of the proceedings to the enquiry which followed the defeat of the 
rising. He noted that the abbot of Kirkstall sat ‘at the table-end’ and 
thought him asober man whospoke little. While the abbot was clearly 
a party to these proceedings he seems to have made little active 
contribution. Neither Dakyn nor Pickering, a Dominican friar who 
was also present,?° mentions the abbot except to note his presence. It is 
not possible, therefore, to know what were the abbot’s opinions on 
the range of expectedly conservative views expressed. 

Sir Henry Savile, writing to Cromwellin January 1537, mentioned 
riots between the abbot’s servants and those of Sir Christopher 
Danby. He commented on the abbot’s ‘lightness’ and thought there 
was ‘cause enough to depose him; and a good man there (for it is a 
house with great lands) would do the king good service’.37 However, 
John Ripley was not deposed, nor did he suffer the fate of his brother 
abbots of Jervaulx, Sawley and Whalley and the former abbot of 
Fountains, William Thirsk, who, with Friar Pickering, the abbot’s 
companion at Pontefract, were all executed.+* 

The rising, with its small later outbursts at Scarborough and Hull, 
was over by the end of January 1537. It was in that month that the 
leasing of the abbey’s demesne lands began, and over the next two 
years practically the whole of the abbey’s demesne was leased. 

4The fullest account is by M. H. and R. Dodds, The Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536, and 
the Exeter Conspiracy, 1538, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1915). There are shorter accounts 
in J. Mackie, The Earlier Tudors, 1485-1558 (Oxford, 1952), pp.385-93, and 
Knowles, RO, III, 320-35. 

35See Smith, Land and Politics, p.198. 

(CLP) 1537, Xl G), 341, 462-64. 

7 Ibid., pp.130-34. 

#Knowles,’RO, Ill, 332, 334. 


It was in his dealings with the abbeys which had caused trouble 
during the Pilgrimage of Grace that the earl of Sussex paved the 
way to deal with the larger abbeys. After leaving Sawley and 
Whalley, Sussex had turned his attention to the great abbey of 
Furness and ‘almost at a venture, suggested that [the abbot] might 
feel disposed to make a free surrender of his house’.3? Kirkstall’s 
turn came late. It was on 22 November 1539*° that John Ripley and 
thirty-one members of the community, in their chapter-house, 
surrendered the abbey to the same Richard Layton who had visited 
themuime 1350" 

The Fate of the Community 

The fate of Abbot Ripley is not altogether clear. He was present at 
the surrender in the chapter-house, but after that his name 
disappears from the records. The monks’ superior is named as John 
Brown, prior. Allister Lonsdale, after a study of the archbishops’ 
registers, assumed that Ripley and Brown were the same person” 
and this may be so. The pension which was granted on 1 March 
1540 and back-dated to Michaelmas 1539*3 was of 100 marks, asum 
appropriate to the head of a house the size of Kirkstall. Ripley (or 
Brown) was made sub-deacon 1n 151344 and cannot therefore have 
been abbot for the first time in 1508—09.45 He is said to have lived in 
the abbey gate-house until his death.* 

All members of the community have been studied individually 
and the available information about each of them has been 
collected.4’7 There are, however, some more general points which 
may be made. Knowles noted that it was much more difficult for 
an ex-monk to find a benefice in northern England than in the 
south. Because of the number of monasteries, the number of 
monks seeking benefices was large; because of their great size the 
number of parishes was small. General wealth was less. It is 
perhaps surprising, therefore, that so many former monks of 
Kirkstall served in parishes after the Dissolution. Edward Sandall 

PUDid 332. 

4°See CLP, 1539, XIV (ii), 198, not 1540, as in Dugdale, MA, V, 529. 

41For the deed of surrender, see T. Rymer, Foedera, XIV (1712), 663, which also 
gives 1540 as the date. 

“Lonsdale, p.204. 

SiCPR, 1558-00, p.$76. 

44Lonsdale, p.204. 

4s See Dugdale, MA, V, 525, 1:23. 

Lonsdale, p.204. 

47Lonsdale, pp.204—-12. 


beeame sa -chantry priest im York and later’ served a cure at 
Tadcaster;#* Gabriel Lofthouse became a chaplain in Richmond and 
on his death in 1552 was buried in Richmond parish church; 
Thomas Pepper was rector of Adel from 1551 to 1553; William 
Northives was ‘clerk of Adel’ in the 1540s; Anthony Jackson was 
curate of Horsforth, later of Otley, and in 1558 was described as 
‘curate of Horsforth Hall, Guiseley’. William Lupton is said to have 
been curate of Huddersfield; Richard Bateson may have been curate 
of Spofforth and rector of Birkin. John Henryson was possibly 
curate and chantry-priest of Leeds and was buried in Leeds parish 
ehurciin 1545. 

Pepper, at least, could have lived in considerable comfort. When 
he died his will included bequests totalling more than £86, ten 
angels of gold and a debt of £20 which he forgave the debtor. Two 
men-servants and possibly three women-servants were mentioned 
in his will, showing that he had been living ‘in a style and manner 
more appropriate to a minor gentleman than to an ex-religious on a 
subsistence pension’.*? The rectory of Adel would have added £16 
to his pension of £5; his leaseholds certainly brought him in more 
than the £20 he paid in rent. His father had left him the family 
property in Bramley and his purchases included the prosperous 
Weetwood ironworks leased at the surrender of the house to Sir 
Robert Neville. By contrast, Edward Heptonstall left cash 
bequests amounting to only £3 12s., and Gabriel Lofthouse left 
only very meagre personal possessions. °° 

Of the ex-monks it must have been Edward Sandall who caused 
the authorities most concern. He had served a number of chantry 
chapels in York in the years immediately following the surrender of 
the house, but in February 1568 he was presented at the 
archbishop’s visitation as ‘a misliker of the established religion and 
a sower of seditious rumours’. It was alleged that he openly 
maintained the doctrine of praying to the saints; that though as a 
‘corrupter of youth’ he was forbidden to teach, he yet continued to 
do so and that he read romances instead of the scriptures. He was 
also reputed to be a-great usurer. He pleaded cuilty only to the 
charge of reading romances and vigorously denied all the others. 
He was allowed to purge himself by the oath of twelve men, but 
was punished when it was found that he had served at Tadcaster 
without admission by the diocesan authorities.>! 

“The information which follows is taken from Lonsdale, passim. 
#” Woodward, p.1s0. 

" 1bid_ap-l st. 

*' VCH] Yorkshire, The City of York, ed. P. Tillott (1961), p.15o. 



The wills studied by Dr Woodward show no evidence of any 
attempt to continue a communal life of any kind,*? but they 
provide plenty of evidence of continued contact between the 
former members of the Kirkstall community, a number of whom 
had settled in the immediate neighbourhood. Thomas Pepper, for 
example, mentioned four of his former brethren in his will.* 

The. ‘total: pension -bill amounted “to £239 14s. 3d. 4Dr 
Woodward has shown that Kirkstall had an unusually large number 
of annuitants dependent upon it, adding a further charge upon the 
house of £73 3s. 4d. Thus there would clearly be a heavy charge 
upon the income from the former monastery’s possessions for a 
number of years after the surrender, but these would be reduced as 
pensioners and annuitants died. 

Links can be traced between former monks of Kirkstall and 
Catholic recusancy in Yorkshire.55 Middleton was a known 
Catholic centre until the middle of the eighteenth century. Paul 
Mason, a former monk, was associated with Gilbert Leigh of 
Middleton. Thomas Bertlett, another former monk, referred to 
‘my host George Hall’ in his will and directed ‘that there remain at 
the said George Hall’s house my altar with the altar cloths’. Hall 
had acquired Allerton Grange by indenture in 1533°° and there is a 
history of Catholic connections at the Grange until Hall’s 
descendants left in the early eighteenth century. 

The Lands of Kirkstall 

There was a considerable element of stability in land-holding in the 
years immediately following the surrender of the house. More than 
100 pre-Dissolution leases were continued. Before its winding-up 
in 1553 the Court of Augmentations had granted twenty-nine new 
leases, but of these twenty-three were to the former tenant, his 
widow or his son. 

It is noticeable that those who had held land of the abbey before 
the surrender failed to increase their holdings. Sir William 
Gascoigne who ‘had as much substance as many peers’ and who 
held land of the abbey at Arthington sought favours of Cromwell 
in 1536-3757. but failed to gain land. Sir Robert Nevill of 

Cif. Knowles, kO.Wl412=12. 

‘3 Printed in full in Woodward, pp.157-61. 
CRP 25305 Sav (il), 198. 

‘SFor this paragraph, see Lonsdale, pp.212-13. 
56 Account 1539-40. 

57See Smith, Land and Politics, pp.145, 244-45. 


Liversedge, who held the Weetwood ironworks on lease, also 
sought favours from Cromwell but gained nothing and had lost 
évene the ironworks by .1542.°° The ‘manor. or-.grange. of 
Micklethwaite, with a cottage at Collingham had been leased to 
Bernard Paver in 1533. Richard Paver (the relationship, if any, is 
not known), ‘the most remarkable case of a rising yeoman’,°? 
hoped to acquire the property but failed. Henry Mason, the king’s 
collector of rents for most of the abbey’s former estates, did not 
increase his holding. 

Some of the abbey’s land went to the building of large estates, 
but those estates were not in the hands of men who had been 
associated with the abbey. Sir Arthur Darcy, younger son of Lord 
Darcy, was vigorously and unscrupulously building up an estate in 
Craven. He gained from the abbey land a large property at Coates 
(Barnoldswick) to add to lands acquired from Sawley, Healaugh 
Priory, and, im ithe Leeds area, from Holy Trinity,: York. 
Kirkstall’s possessions in York went to Sir Richard Gresham, one 
of the richest men of his day, who also acquired the site and 
demesne lands of Fountains.°? Two of Gresham’s associates, Sir 
Thomas Heneage and Sir Thomas Chaloner, acquired land in 
Bardsey and Snydale respectively.° 

Much of the abbey’s lands passed to new owners through the 
hands of agents, of whom the best known and perhaps the most 
active was William Ramsden. During 1543-46 land in many areas 
where abbey land had been located passed through his hands. He 
held little of it for long. The most striking is the property at Pudsey 
and Loscoe Grange which he acquired on 14 September 1544 and 
passed to new owners, obviously by a previous arrangement, the 
next day. 

One small piece of land is of some interest. It is well known that 
Mary tried to re-found some of the monastic houses which had 
been suppressed during the reign of her father. One such was the 
Hospital of the Savoy. Folifayt Meadow, part of the Kirkstall lands 
at Bardsey, was included in the land with which the Hospital was 
endowed at its re-foundation.®°’ This land, under its alternative 

8 Tbid., pp.244-45. 

2 lide p25. 

CEP 1545. Oe Gi) s 125, 

* Smith, Land and Politics, pp.228-29, 235-36; CLP, 1538, XIII, 1. 
° CLP, 1545, XX (i), 523; Smith, Land and Politics, p.240. 

°CPR, 1548-49, p.123; 1553, p-14. 

“CLP, 1544, XIX (ii), p.184. 

°SCPR, 1557-58, p.361. 


name of Kirkstall Ing, was among the Hospital’s possessions when 
it was finally dissolved in 1702.°° 

In 1564 came the largest and most significant grant of the former 
abbey lands when Rowlande Haywarde and Robert Savile acquired 
lands in Headingley, Burley, Bar Grange, Armley, Newhall, 
Allerton by Bradford, Rodley and Moor Grange.*’ These lands 
were valued at the Dissolution at £100 per year and therefore 
represented nearly one-third of the abbey’s net annual income. 
Robert Savile was an illegitimate son of Sir Henry Savile. Robert’s 
descendants became successively Baron Savile, Viscount Savile and 
eventually earl of Sussex, the male line becoming extinct in 1671. In 
1668 Frances, sister of the last earl, had married the heir to the earl 
of Cardigan and so the estates passed into the hands of his family.° 

By 1711 the Cardigans had also acquired, by means which are 
not clear, the site of the abbey and the demesne lands. On the 
surrender of the house this land had been granted on a lease of 
twenty-one years to Robert Pakenham, the ‘farmer of the lord 
King’. In 1543 ‘these same lands. were granted to Thomas 
Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.’° Cranmer appears, however, 
not to have taken possession of the lands, for in 1545 they were 
surveyed with a view to their acquisition by Cranmer in place of 
certain other lands held by Cranmer which the King now 
required.” Even now, however, Cranmer appears not to have 
gained possession, for in August 1547 he was yet again granted the 
land in fulfilment of Henry VIII’s will. This grant was ‘for the 
reversion’. Pakenham had perhaps died and Cranmer may have 
taken possession, for in 1550 he was given licence to alienate his 
Kirkstall lands to Peter Hayman and John Sandford, to be held to 
the use of the archbishop during his lifetime, to his executors for 
twenty years and to Thomas, the archbishop’s youngest son, after 
that. They were so held until 1557 when they reverted to the 
Crown on Cranmer’s attainder for treason.”? The lands were 
immediately assigned to John Gawyn and Reynold Wolf, but in 
1$59, very soon after Elizabeth’s accession, Thomas Cranmer, son 
of the former archbishop, successfully petitioned for the return of 

“VCH, London, \xed. W. Page (1900), p. 548: 

CPR, 1563-66, p.148. 

8G.E.C., The Complete-Peerage, v.c. Savile. 

CEP. 1540. SVN 21 

MCLE. i542, CoV ik 250: 

™PRO, E318/7/235. Theres an account of the farmer for the year 37-Henry VIM 
(1545-46) in the library of Lambeth Palace, Receivers’ Accounts, 1372. 

CPR, 1547-48, P:37s 1549-51, P:32% 2557, p2483. 


his father’s lands. Ten years later, however, Cranmer was in arrears 
with his rent and the Crown resumed possession of the lands.73 
There appears to be no further record until they are shown in the 
Cardigan estate map of 1711.7 

It will be clear from this account of the history of Kirkstall 
Abbey that her community was soon in possession of sources of 
income forbidden by the statutes of the order. Indeed, the 
consequences of irregular possessions of land, services and rights, 
which soon became widespread within the English families, were 
most injurious to the spirit and reputation of the order — the 
prolonged and unedifying dispute between the monks of Kirkstall 
and- St Leonard’s Hospital, York, is only one of countless 
examples. As a result, the story of the Cistercian order is one of the 
saddest in the history of monasticism. 

Citeaux and Clairvaux in their early years ‘gave as fully and as 
unhesitatingly as can be given here below, an answer to the 
question “Good Master, what shall I do that I may possess eternal 
life?”...... “Enter here: live as we do: this do, and thou shalt 
live .” But, irresistibly attracted by the best and purest Cistercian 
houses, among which, briefly, Rievaulx, Fountains and Byland 
were luminaries, the world flocked to their gates, showered them 
with gifts and put a high value on their intercessions. For a few 
brief years the light burned brightly and then, perhaps inevitably, 
was dimmed by those worldly responsibilities and cares from which 
the writers of the earliest codes and constitutions, in their 
declaration of the Cistercian ideal, had striven so earnestly to protect 
them. Kirkstall, as we have seen, was not°one of the more 
distinguished of the white monk houses, nor did any member of 
her community, except the shadowy Ralph Haget whose true 
home was Fountains, achieve renown either for sanctity or 
learning; yet perhaps it may finally be said that, given a life nearly 
four centuries long, the disorders which from time to time beset the 
abbey were few and possibly it is not unreasonable to suppose that 
a decent, if uninspired, observance of the religious life was on the 
whole maintained over most of this long period. 

™2CPR, 1558-60, p.116; 1566-69, p.439. 
Northamptonshire Record Office, Brudenell Map 41. 
Knowles, MO, p.220. 

| i. : 


a en 

ee Ser rene ne RATS 

aft ianeeth Seatebs: erat Q = i Aor _ < 
ait We ened aha poten A ar 
poe ‘Spe * ie ak Cd ha - bs 
ieee ee ee ore Balog 
— tJ apy, Dace ste il Sy sha) omth: 4 : thin 
dona oagay "aly geirr « <i ag, sake Keaeana tet Oat wie a 

mes bern a hea aS a AIS 

ot aon os ~~ i ay rsa eaneeeaalar ean * bt 
re rosie ioe é iain: Rape 


Mae — 

- +24 
_ apy - : Gui Ws aA 
— _ 
i OY ‘ i ) 
7 Tia e 
* * n 7 
as * 
4 | 
- \ 

0 Vw 

aa _— 
—— F 
; % 
“ ? 

The Abbots of Kirkstall 

The fullest lists of abbots are those given in the Fundacio, 
pp.187-88, and in volume V of Dugdale, MA, where the text has 
been amended either from the Fundacio or from a common source. 
Both lists can be shown to be unreliable in several particulars. They 
are used here, therefore, only where no other source 1s available and 
with other evidence in support as far as possible. The list given in 
VCH, Yorkshire, Ill, p.145, 1s also unreliable as it depends largely 
on the list in Dugdale. 

A valuable list of the early abbots and a discussion of their dates is 
to be found im C. 1. Clay, “Yhe Early Abbots of .Yorkshwe 
Cistercian Houses’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, XXXVIII 

The first and last dates only are given here. 

Abbot Dates Source 
Alexander 1147. Fundacio, p.174 
1182 Fundacio, p.181 
Ralph Haget 1182 Fundacio, p.181 
(?)1190  Fundacio, p.181n 
Lambert c.1190 Fundacio, p.183 
c.1193 Fundacio, p.185 
Turgisius c.1196 Guisborough Cartulary, Il, ed. 

W. Brown, SS, LX X XIX (1894), 41 
1199-1203 Guisborough Cartulary, p.330' 

Helias de Roche (r202)" ©. 1. Clay, “Whe Barly Abbots of 

1204f Yorkshire Cistercian Houses’ 
Ralph de Newcastle 1204 ree ‘The Early Abbots’ 

1231 ‘earliest possible date’ (Clay) 
Walter (?)1231-33 Clay, “The Early Abbots’ 
Maurice (i232 = Clay, The Early Abbots’ 

1249 Dugdale, MA, V, 5287 
Adam 1249 Dugdale, MA, V, 528 

@ce.1258 Dodsworth, VIlIl, fi.400, 305 

Hugh Mikelay 1259 Dugdale, MA, V, 528 

1262 Dugdale, MA, V, 528? 
Simon 1262, Wuedale MA NV 5238" 

1269 Dugdale, MA, V, 528° 
William de Leeds 1269 Dugdale, MA, V, 528° 

1275 Dugdale WA, VY . 528 
Gilbert de Cotles/ 1275 Dugdale, MA, V, 528 


Henry Kar 

Hugh Grimston 
John de Bridesale 

William de Driffield 

Roger de Leeds 

John Topcliffe 

John de Thornberg 
John de Bardsey 

William de Stapleton 

John de Colyngham 

William Grayson/ 

Thomas Wymberslay 

Robert Killingbeck 
William Stockdale 

William Marshall 

John Ripley (Brown) 











Canivez, lll, 2037 

Dugdale, MA, V, 529 

Monastic Notes, 1, ed. W. P. Baildon, 
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 
Record Series, XVII (1895), 109 

Fundacio, p.188 

Fundacio, p.206° 

Fundacio, p.206 

Reg. Greenfield, IV, 111 

Reg. Greenfield, II, 183 

CPR, 1327-30, p.132 

CE. 2275 

Register of William Zouche, Lord 
Archbishop of York, f.4 

Calendar of Papal Letters, HI (1897), p.375 

CCR, 1354-56, p.225 

Monastic Notes, 1, 107 

Monastic Notes, I, 113 

CPR, 1377-81, p.357 

VCH, Yorkshire, Ill, 145 

Mem. Fountains, SS, XLII (1863), 207 

Calendar of Papal Letters, VI (1904), p.410 

Canivez, IV, 388: 

Monastic Notes, 1, 107 

Register of George Nevill, Lord 
Archbishop of York, f.16 

Register of George Nevill, Lord 
Archbishop of York, f.16 

Monastic Notes, I, 107 

Dugdale, MA, V, 529 

Register of Thomas Savage, Lord 
Archbishop of York, f.11 

Testamenta Eboracensia, 1V, SS, LIII 
(1869), 256 

Register of Christopher Bainbridge, 
Lord Archbishop of York, f.9 

Register of Thomas Wolsey, Lord 
Archbishop of York, f.94°° 

CLEP 1530, XIV Gile-pios-- 

‘abbot for nine years’, Fundacio, p.186. 

*VCH inserts ‘Martin, occ.1237’ before Maurice, from Feet of Fines, Yorks., file 30, 
no.16; 20-23 Henry III. This may be either a misreading of Maurice, or intended 
for him. There appears to be no other reference to Abbot Martin and it seems clear 
that Maurice was abbot in 1237, CB, p.15. Dugdale (MA, V, 528n) says that 
Maurice succeeded in 1222, but this is almost certainly too early. Ralph occurs 
10 Henry III, 1.e. 1225-26. Maurice’s dates are confirmed to 1246 by CB, p.24. 

7A note to p.528 gives 1159" 


4Dugdale, MA, V, 528 gives 40 Henry III, a.pD. 1262. 40 Henry III was 1255-56, but 
this is almost certainly too early. 

‘Confirmation up to 1267-68 is provided by Dodsworth, VIII, 67. 

°VCH inserts ‘Robert, c.1272-75’ before Gilbert, from Baildon, Monastic Notes, 1, 

112. Baildon wrote ‘. . . one Robert, formerly abbot of Kirkstall . . . and in the 
time of Edward I the said abbot Robert. . .’. No other reference to him has been 

7Deposed by general chapter. 

°VCH inserts ‘William of Partington, occ.1290’, before John, but no other 
reference to him has been found. Hugh made his profession of obedience to 
Archbishop Romeyn in 1289, Reg. Romeyn, I, 85. 

*Resigned into the hands of the visitors from the general chapter. 

‘Dugdale (MA, V, 529) shows Ripley as abbot 1508-09, before Marshall, but there 
is no other reference to him. As Ripley was not made sub-deacon until 1513 
(Lonsdale, ‘The Last Monks of Kirkstall Abbey’, p.204), this seems unlikely. 

"Dugdale (MA, V, 529) gives 1540, but the abbey was dissolved in November 


. = 

| : 


aniline! ret rir ake 
Se Ab eee Ine” Hike vA 

hi 2 ade are dy an Wy wee | 









> ~ 


cw atin ye am 
iy a PA 

: a) 
‘or = ‘Taras Salt 
j oo 
we . aaa i 
) xo <7 | 
: & 
- "= 

ob S@r © 
cs ™ : 4 = 
4 aX 
= — - 
&. ‘ 


Abbreviations: a., abbot; abp, archbishop; Aug., Augustinian; B., Benedictine; bp, bishop; 
bro., brother; C., Cistercian: -ch., church; d., duke; Dom.,. Dominican? ¢€., earl: Gilb., 
Gilbértine; K., Kirkstall Abbey;-m., monk; pr, priest; ¥., rector, rectory; s/, Sofi; sr; 

Sister: V.., vicar. 

Aaron, Jew of Lincoln, 11, 43 

Accrington, 18, 34, 37, 44, 49, 67; grange, 
Gore. 33 

Ackton, 17 

Adam), 18; 4. of K., 42, 61, 95; forester, ao; 
grangarius, 49, lay-bro., 34 

NGeL. 6. 10,20, 25, 20M), 27,228, 40, 62, 
ACh, NS: EE. Ol, 30, 73588, 89 

advowson, 45 

ad quod damnum, inquisition, 29 

Ailred, a. of Rievaulx, 2 

Mite, TVerD, 7, 10; 82 

Airedale, 31 

Alainsete, 13 

Aldborough, ch., 74 

Aldfield (Oldfield), 36, 37; grange, 33, 38, 

Miexander, g.67K., 7 andn., 8, bie.47, 54, 
$8, 60, 70; 785 95 

Alexander III, pope, 72 

Allerton, family, v5, 35 Adanyv de; 15; 
Nicholas de, 22; Samson dé, ror., 15, 
212 Wm de, 22, 36 

Allerton. vill, 10, 1-5, 21, 22, 25", 26, 31, 
32, 38, 41, 42, 84, OT; grange, 14, 22, 33, 
BA AO, AY, Aon., 81, 90 

Allerton-by-Bradford, 92 

Allerton Gledhow, 16, 30, 31 

Arches, Herbert de, 16; Ric. de, 16 

Ardsley, 36 

Aristotle, $5 

Arualey, vill, 16; 30; 36,37, 81, 82 

Arthington, 30; nunnery, 86, 90 

Aske, Rob., 87 

Attewood, Joh., 30, 31 

Aubreye, 67 

Aumale, abbey, 68, 74 

Austhorpe, 17, 37, 38 

Austin Canons, I, 61 

Baghill, Margaret de, widow of Rob., 50 

Bar Gtange, 117... 335-40, 42n., 83, 85, 92 

Bardi of Florence, bankers, 39 

Bardsey, Joh. de, 96 

Bardsey, 10; 20, 23, 245-30, 39, 44,6F, 62, 
FO, Bl, 63,04, O1 

Barkston, Ric. de, 22 

Barnoldswick (Bernolfwic), 12, 13, 34, 37, 
40n., 74, 83, 91; the community at, 2-11 
Passifits “WA, WT, $4,972; Yen. WO. 72; 
grange, 41 

Bateson, Ric., m. of K., 89 

Bath, B. Abbey, 86 

Baxter, Wm, 30, 31 

Bayeux, Thos of, abp of York, 1 

Beaulieu, C. abbey, 61n., 62, 70 

Beckett Park, vii, 11n. 

Bede, Venerable, 56 

Beeston, family, 17 

Beeston, 17, 37, 39 

Bendy, Eliz., 29 

Benedict XII, pope, 60 

Benedictines, 1, 12, 60, 61, 65 

Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint, 2, 33, 58, 86 

Bertlett, Thos, m. of K., 90 

Berwick, Hen. de, acolyte, 72 

Bessacar, Pet. de, 21; Wm de, 20 

Bessacar, 11; 22,37, 41; orange, 20, 30 

Betti of Lucca, merchants, 38, 39 

Bilson, John, $7, 59 

Bilton, Hugh de, m. of K., 71 

Birkin, r. of, 89 

Bishopthorpe, York (Thorpe), ton., 19, 22 

Black Death, 43, 45, $3 

Blackburnshire, 12, 64, 67 

Blacker, 70, 78 

Blacko (Blacho), 13 

Blakebroc, 13 

Blyth, ch., 71 

Bolling, 17, 22 

Bolton-in-Wharfedale, priory, 1, 35, 73, 

Bony, J., 59 

Bowet, Hen., abp of York, 71 

Bowland (Bolland), 17, 33, 66 

Bracewell, 4.13% 50, $2; ch., 4) 20,63, Fr, 
Wg IBS Von (0855 Von, Vie 

Brackenley, 15 

Bramhope, 19 and n., 37, 75, 76 

Bramley, vil, 16, 17, 26, 36, 48, 81, 83, 
85, 89 

Bramley Fall, stone from, 58 

Brearey, family, 30; Joh. de, 30, 31; Rob. 
de, 18, 26 


Brearey, 10, 18; 26 and #., 30; 41, 42% 
grange, 18, 33, 40, 42, 8I 

Bridesale (Birdsall), family, 48; Joh. de, a. 
Of K., 48.72, 96; 1m: Of K:, 48, $2,971; 
Thos de;.48,. 71, 72; Wm de, 48 

Bridlington, 1, 72 

Brighton, Wm de, 31 

Brogden, 4, 10, 13 

Bromholm, abbey, 86 

Brown(e) (Ripley), Joh., prior of K., 85, 
87, 88, 96 

Brown, Ric:, 30, 32: Wii, 30, 32 

Browne, Gilb., m. of K., 85 

Bruce, de, family, 19 

Bull, Joh., 64 

Burdon, Beatrix, w. of Hugh, 22; Hugh de, 
22; Rob. de, 27 

Burdon, 22, 26 

Burley, 7, 1in., 83, 92; erage, 334. 40; 
Green, 7 

Burn Moor, 13 

Burnley, 17 

Burstall, B. priory, 1, 52, 68, 74 and n., 83 
and n. 

Byland, °C: abbey, 2,56, 58. 78, 93;-a..0f, 

Bytham, C. abbey, 2 

Calder, C. abbey, 3, 78 

Calverley,, 29, 32; Walter de, 53 

Calverley, 17 

Cambridge, Jesus Coll., 55; Sidney Sussex 
Colle $5 

Cantley, 20 

Cardigan, ¢. of, 7, 92 

Cawood, 72 

Chaloner, Sir Thos, 91 

Chambers, Joh., 82; Wm, s. of Joh., 82 

Chapel Allerton, 15, 83; grange, 81 

Chapman, Joh., 30 

Chester, constable of, 68; Ranulf, e. of, 3 

Chicksand, Gilb. house, 56 

Chronicles (of Kirkstall 
Kirkstall, abbey 

Cistercians, 12, 38, 61, 62 and #., 93; 
administration, 47, $51, 66, 68-69, 72; 
agrarian organization, 33, 37, 41, 45; 
architecture, $7, 58, 60; expansion, I-4; 
general chapter, 2, 3, 39, 42, 43, 49, 50, 
§2. and ft. $7; 65, 68; 69; °70;-77,..78;,. 79 

Citcaux, C2 abbey, 27, 69,03; m. of, 78 

Claighton, family, 85 

Chirvaux, C. abbey. 2, $8,935.14. .0f, $0, 

Cleckheaton, 21 

Cleeve,-C. abbey, 60 

Clement V, pope, 75 

Clessaghe, 13 

Clifford, family, 79 

Abbey), see 


Clifford, 37, 40, 49, 82; manor, 48 

Chitheroe, 23°52 

Cliviger, 6, ©O, 17, 18,35 and m, 44, 40; 
grange, 33 

Coates. 4; 13, 91 

Coggeshall, Ralph de, 53 

Coik, Jew of London, 44 

Collinghami, 19, 20, 23 24,. 305.44, O8 62, 
FOUSL, OA; 40k 

Colvin, H. M., 66 

Colyngham, Joh. de, a. of K., 50, 69, 96 

Combermere, abbey, 78 

Compton, grange, 34, 40, 41 

Cookridge, 10 and n., 18, 20, 37, 38, 81, 
83; grange, 40 

Coombe, C. abbey, 78 

Corbridge, Thos of, abp of York, 70, 71 

corrodians, 65; corrodies, 52; see also 
Kirkstall, abbey 

Cotles (Coates, Cotes, Cothes), Gilb. de, 
43, 49, 95, 96 

Coucher Book (of Kirkstall Abbey), 6, 8, 
20, 28, 20,38, $4, 62; 63% 64, 68,760 

courts, of Augmentations, 90; church, 23; 
royal, 22, 23; wapentake, 22 

Couthorpe, Margaret de, 32; Wm de, 32 

Coverdale (Colredene), 13 

Cowhird, Hen., the, 32 

Cranmer, Thos, abp of Canterbury, 92; s. 
of, 92 

Craven, 3, O41 

Critinns, P.,. 46 

Cromwell, Thos, 85 and n., 90, 91 

Dakyn, Joh., r. of Kirby Ravensworth, 87 

Dalton, Rob. de, forester, 64 

Danby, Sir Chris., 87 

Darcy, Thes, Lord, 85 .and n, 87; Sir 
Arthur, s. of Thos, 86, 91 

Darrington, 24, 28, 41; grange, 81 

David I, king of Scotland, 3, 5, 16 

Dean-Grange, 19, 34, 40, 41, 42 ands. 

Denholm-Young, N., 39 

Dieulacres, C. abbey, 3, 78 

Dissolution of the Monasteries, 15, 18, 19, 
20, 34,30, 47,48; 57, 02) 73,744 ol 
88, 90, 92 

Dodsworth, Roger, 54 

Domesday Survey, 16, 17, 35 

Doncaster, 20,.22,.23,, 407-079 

Donnelly, J. T., 42 

Dover, 52 

Driffield, Joh. de, m. of K., 55, 84; Wm de, 
a. of K., 55n., 64, 96 

Durham, bp of, 41; cathedral, 1 

East Burdon, 18 
East Marton, 4 
Eastburn, 26 


Eecupy 275-30) 8; 85 

Edward I, king, 32, 44, 48, 54, 63, 65, 79; 
Edw. Il, king, 45, 63; Edw. IIl, king, 63, 
64, 75 

Ekerlays, Ric., §2 

Elam, grange, 33, 34, 40, 41 

Eland, Hen. de, 53; Ric. de, 6 

Eleanor, sr. of Edward III, 63 

Elfwinetrop, 4, 10, 13 

Ely, bp of, 54 

Embsay, priory, I 

Eugenius IV, pope, 77 

Eutropius, 56 

Everingham, family, 76; Adam de, 28 

Farrer, W.,/13 

Fawcett, Wm, 85 

FitzAsketin, Rob., 21, 23 

FitzDuncan, Wm, 3, § 

Fitzgerald, Wm, 17 

FitzHubert, Rob., 19, 22 

FitzHugh, Hugh, 20 

FitzNigel, Hugh FitzHugh, 20 

FitzPeter, Adam, 10, 20, 76 

FitzRobert, Hugh, 22 

Flanders-Guelden, Reg., c. of, 63 

Florence, 38 

Folifayt Meadow, 91 

Forde, C. abbey, 60 

Fors, 2,5 

Fountains, C. abbey, 40, 53, 54, 56, 66, 76, 
78293, abbots, 4,-5, 44, 49, St, 69; 70, 
79, see also under individual names (Hen.; 
Huby; Ripon, Joh.; Rob.; Thirsk, Wm, 
Thornton, Rob.); architecture, 58, 59, 
60; demesne, 91; foundation, 2, 5; 
foundation of K. from, 5, 7, 8-9, 34, 47, 
AS; prior (Alex:), 5, 8; site, 91 

Foxcroft de Cristall, Thos, 56 

Frances, sr of e. of Sussex, 92 

Francis, Saint, of Assisi, 86 

Frank, Edmund, 31 

iniats, 27 

Fundacio Abbathie de Kyrkestall, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 
and’ W., §O, LI, 15, 26"), 43-485 53, $4, 
62, 63 

Furness, ©.rabbey, 2, 59, 60, 78, 86, 88 

Fymere, Sim. de, m. of -K., 71 

Gailmers, 13 

Gascoigne, Sir Wm, 90 

Gascony, 44, 45 

Gason, Willelmus, m. of K., 57 

Germanus, Saint, 56 

Giffard, Joh., steward, 64; Walter de, abp of 
York, $1,-71 

Gilbert of Sempringham, Saint, 18n. 

Gilkirk, ch., 72°74, 83 

Gowshill, Sim. of, canon, 56 


Grace Dieu, C. abbey, 86 

granges, see Kirkstall, abbey 

Grayson (Graveson), Wm, a. of K., 96 

Great Schism, 78 and n. 

Greenfield, Wm, abp of York, 53, 70, 71, 75 

Gresham, Sir Ric., 91 

Grimston, Hugh, a. of K., 43, 48, $4, 69, 
77, 90; tt. of K-48, SO, 71 

Grosseteste, bp, 27, 40 

Guisborough, 1; priory, 79 

Guiseley, Wm de, $3n. 

Guiseley, 89 

Haget, Bertram, 48; Ralph, a. of K., 47; 
48, 49, 51, $3, 62, 93, 95 
Hagger, Wm, 32; Cecily, w. 

Hall, Geo., 90 

Haverholm, Gilb. priory, 2, 19, 75, 76 

Hawksworth, wood, viii, 7, 83 

Hawton, Wm, m. of K., 71 

Haye, Miles de la, 51, 69 

Hayles, C. abbey, 27 

Flaynian, Pet., 92 

Haywarde, Rolande, 92 

Headingley (Heddyngley), Chris. de, 56 

Headingley, vaii, 9, 24, 20,, 32; $5; 02; 
Hall, 89; manor of, 21, 29, 32; North 
Lane, 7; St Michael’s Lane, 7 

Healaugh Park, C. abbey, 48, 91 

Heneage, Sir Thos, 91 

Henry, a. of Fountains, 69 

Henry the Cowhird, 30, 31, 32; Mary, w. 
of Hen., 31 

Henry I king, 1on.; 11#., 12, 15, 19,355; 
AO, 52, OF, 62 and, 65, 67, © of Anjou, 
3; Hen. III, king, 61n., 65; Hen. VI, king, 
63; Hen. VII, king, 73; Hen. VIII, king, 

Henryson, Joh., m. of K., 89 

Heptonstall, Edw., m. of K., 89 

Hesywell, smithy, 36, 83 

of Wm, 32 

Hexham, 1 

Fill, B. D., 28 

Historia Anglorum (Henry of Huntingdon), 

Historia Regum Brittaniae (Geoffrey of 

Monmouth), 56 
Holderness, 68, 74 
Holme Cultram, C. abbey, 2, 78 
Hooton Pagnell, 10, 27; grange, 33), 63 
lope, W. HSt I, $7 
Horbury, 30; Wm de, 30 
Horsforth, vil, 7, lO and'#., fo, 20, 22, 28, 
BO 30 357 BO; 37 5a 70; Ol, 85,000 
Hospitallers, 26 
Howveden, Hen. de, m: of 'K., 71 
Hoyland, Geof. de, 56 
Huby, a. of Fountains, 60 
Huddersfield, 82, 89 


Hugh, m. of K., 4, 53, 54 
Hull, 39, 87 

Hulton, C. abbey, 78 
Humphrey, lay-bro. of K., 34 
Huncoat, 44 

Hunslet, 69 

Huntingdon, Hen. of, 56 

Ile de France, 59 
Insula, Sibil de, anchoress, 79 
ironworks, 89, 9I 

Jackson, Anthony, m. of K., 89 

James, clerk, 78 

Jarrow, B. abbey, 1 

Jeevaulx,:C..abbey,, 2; 59, 78, 86; ax. of,.87 

Jews, 43 

John, king, 23, 24, 49, 61, 62 and n., 65, 68; 
m. of K., 50 

John the Damascene, $5 

Jordan, cardinal, 4, 50 

Kar, Hen., a. of K.,. 96 
Keighley, 19, 20, 26, 28, 75, 76 
Kempe, Joh., abp of York, 70 
Killingbeck, family, 48n.;Joh., 84; Rob., a. 
of K., 48, 84, 96; Wm, 31 
Kilnsea, ch., 74 
KIRKS PALE. 7.20.10, 12,15. 19.20). 35; 
37) 435.55 
abbots, 48-50, $1, $2, 65, 71, 76-80, 
95-96; election of, 66, 69, 70, 71; 
see also under individual names 
(Adam; Alexander; Bardsey, Joh. 
de; Bridesale (Birdsall), Joh. de; 
Colyngham, Joh. de; _ Cotles 
(Cothes, Cotes, Coates), Gilb. de; 
Driffield, Wm de; Grayson (Grave- 
son), Wm; Grimston, Hugh; 
Haget, Ralph; Kar, Hen.; Killing- 
beck, Rob.;-Lambert; Leeds, Rog. 
de; Leeds, Wm de; Marshall, Wm; 
Maurice; Mikelay, Hugh; New- 
castle, Ralph de; Ralph; Ripley 
(Brown(e)), Joh.; Roche, Helias de; 
Simon; Stapleton, Wm de; Stock- 
dale, Wm; Topcliffe, Joh.; Tur- 
gisius; Thornberg, Joh. de; Walter 
(1213-33); Walter (1314); William; 
Wyberslay, Thos) 
annuitants, 90 
Barnoldswick, the community at, 
4-II passim, 14, 47, 54, 72 
buildings, 11, $7, 66; abbots 
lodgings, 51, 67; church, 8, I1, 21, 
$3, 60, 66; cellarium, 11; chapter- 
house, 11, $5, $8, $9; cloister, 
Fi, 55; 60; dorniutery,..s9, 60; 

gatehouse, 53, 88; guest-house, 60, 
Fil; Sntimnary,» 251.1100 "and ot. 
kitchen, 11; library, 55, 56; meat- 
kitchen, $1, 60; retectory, 14,47, 
51, 60; tower, 60 

cellarer, <1 

chapter, $1 

charters, 20-27 passim, 55; of Hen. de 
Lacy, 7-9 

Chronicles (of K. abbey), the ‘Long’, 
54; the ‘Short’, 54 

corrodians, $2, 63; corrodies, 68 

economic organization, 33-46, 
81-84, see also granges, lay- 

external relations, 61-80 

financial difficulties, 34, 43-46, 52-53 

foundation, 4-I1 passim 

granges, 11, 20; 33, 34, 41425.45, 0 
see also under individual names 
(Accrington; Aldfield (Oldfield); 
Allerton; Bar; Barnoldswick; Bes- 
sacar;, Brearey; -Burley;) Chapel 
Allerton; Cliviger; | Compton; 
Cookridge; Dean; Elam; Hooton 
Pagnell; Loscoe  (Loftesclogh); 
Micklethwaite; Moor; Nether; 
New; New Lathe; Roundhay; 
Rushton (Riston, — Risseton)); 
villeins, 35 and n.; see also lay- 

incidents, feudal, 28 and n.; escheat, 
29; wardship, 28 

indiscipline, 49-50, $3 

intellectual activities, 53-57 

internal life, 47-60 

king, relations with, 61-66; royal 
protection, 43, 44, 45, 52n., 62n., 
65, 77 

land: assarts, 21, 35, 36; boundary 
marks, .36;, cultures, 221, \occ; 
demesne, 27, 36, 41, 81,267,102; 
endowments of, 4, 6, 7-II, 12-20, 
27-32; exploitation of, 12, 35-37, 
41-43; tenure, implications of, 
20-27 (fee-farm), 20, 23, 68, 81, 83 
(frankalmoin), 23, 24, 28, 61, 64 
(military), 32, 61 (warranty), 26, 
27; see also K., services 

lay-brothers,. 5,6, 95, Tis33ses4nuas- 
47, $0, 63, 67, see also under indi- 
vidual names (Adam; Humphrey; 
Norman; Robert; Stephen; Walter) 

leases, 41, 42, 45, 82, 85 andn., 90, 91 

literary remains, 54-57 

mills, 83 

minerals, 16, 83; rights to, 36 

monks, and the surrender of the 
House, 84, 88-90; ordination as 


priests, 71; recruitment of, 50-51, 

see also under individual names 
(Bateson, - Ric.; ~ Birtlett, Theos; 
Driffield; Joh.; Fymere, Sim. de; 
Gason, Willelmus; Grimston, 
Hugh de; Hawton, Wm de; 
Henryson, Joh.;  Heptonstall, 

Edw.; Hoveden, Hen. de; Hugh; 
Jackson, Anthony; Joh.; Leeds, 
Wm de; Lofthouse, Gab.; Lupton, 
Wm; Mason, Paul; Pepper, Thos; 
Sandall, Edw.; Serlo; Stamborn, 
Joh.; York, Wm of) 

patron, 44, 49; relations with, 66-68; 
see also, de Lacy; Lancaster, Joh. of 
Gaunt, d. of 

prior, 51, 84, see also Brown(e), Joh.; 
sub-prior, 84 

rents, 21, 23, 24 and #., 25,27, 20) 30, 
41, 42, 44, 45, 62, 63, 81, 84; -rolls, 
34, $5, 81, 85 

seal, 10 

secular church, relations with, 70-74 

services, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32; boon- 
work, 83-84; forinsec, 24n., 25; 
knights’ fee, 25, 26; mulitary, 23, 
25; puture, 64; scutage, 26, 28; suit 
of court, 28 

sheep-farming, 37-40, 43 

sheepfold, 20, 37, 38 

smithies, 36, 83 and n. 

surrender of the House, 82, 84-93 


tithe, 18; 23, DOr, 45, 9595055; 72, 75. 

visitations, abbots’, 44, 47, 68-69; 
abps’; 70 

wool-production, 37-40 
see also Coucher Book (of Kirkstall 
Abbey); Fundacio Abbathie de 
Kirkstall Ing, 92 
Kirkstead, 2 
Knowles, D., 41, 86, 88 

Racy, family, 3,-5, 1264,-67,-68; Alice de, 
86 Hen<de, 4, 6,7, 8, 9; to and ., 11, 
iD ee laNol So) 10) 77a hard serge 1S OnnOSs (OO; 
68; Hen. de, e. of Lincoln, 67; [lbert de, 
3, 16; Joh. de, constable of Chester, 67; 
Joh. de, e. of Lincoln, 18, 33, 64; Rob., 6, 
Ol, 17., 16421527, 37000,.07, 68; Rog. 
de, 7, 20, 62; Rog:; s. of Joh., 67; estates, 
66, 67; fee, 10, 35 

Ramibert, 4.0, Kay 0; 17, 33, 345 35140, 49, 95 

Lancashire, 36, 44, 64 

Lancaster, family, 67; d. of, 66; Gaunt, Joh. 
Gf) d. of, 50,68; Hen., d..0f, 68; Thos, e. 
of, 64, 86 


Lancaster, 23 

Lastingham, I 

lay-brothers, 33, 34, 42, 45, 46; see also 
Kirkstall, abbey 

Layton, Ric., 85, 88 

Leathley, family, 19; Hugh, 19; Wm, 19, 22 

Ledston (Ledeston),. Rog. de, 17,22, 25 

Leeds, Rog. de, a. of K., 96; Wm,a. of K., 
95; Win, m. of K., 71 

Leeds, 7, 15, 35, SOn7 1, 75,281, 80, Ole ch. 
86, 89; parish of, 51, 53 

Legh, Dr Thos, 85 

Leigh, Gilb., 90 

Lepton, Wm de, 30 

Liége, University of, 56 

Lincoln; ¢. of, 17; 40, 43, 44, Hens, e. of, 
67; JON jvc: Of. 18; 335 64 

Lincolnshire, 3, 18, 87 

Lindisfarne, abbey, 1 

Liversedge, 91 

Lofthouse, Gab., m. of K., 89 

Lofthouse, 16 

London, 63 

Longvillers, Eudo de, 21; Joh. de, 21 

Loscoe (Loftesclogh), 17, 41; grange, 65 
and 75, 91 . 

Lupton, Wm, m. of K., 85, 89 

Luttrell, family, 18n., 33 

Lyngarth, 82 

Magna Carta, 28 

Maitland, F. W., 23), 26 

Malcolm IV, king of Scotland, 3 

Margam, C. abbey, 62 

Marshall, family, 31; Chris., 48, 84; 
Matilda, mother of Ric., 30, 32; Ric., 30, 
31, 32; Wm, a. of K., 48,60, 84, 96 

Marton, 5, 135,15, 73 

Mary, Saint, 86 

Mary I, queen, 91 

Mason, Hen., collector of rents, 91; Paul, m. 
of K., 90 

Matthew, family, 85 

Mauleverer, family, 19; Sir Joh., 29; Rob., 

Maunice, aiiof KX,, 42x 95 

Meanwood, 15 

Meaux, C. abbey, 40, 45 

Melrose, C. abbey, 2, 60 

Merevale, C. abbey, 78 

Meschin, family, 19, 35 

Micklethwaite, 19, 20, 33, 35, 61, 62, 68; 
grange, 40, 49, 52, 61, 67, 91 

Middleton-in-Pickering, 74, 90; rectory, 

Middop (Midhop), 13 
Midgley, family, 85 
Mikelay, Hugh, a. of K., 95 
Mikelker, 36 


Millerts, Pet., 20; Wm de, 20 

Monk Bretton, 17 

Monkwearmouth, I 

Montfort, Sim. de, 79 

Moor Allerton, 15 

Moor Grange, 15; 33,40, 41, 427. 92 

Moreville, Herbert de, 19, 61, 62n.; Ric. 
de, 20, 62 

Morley, 17 

mortmain, licences to alienate in, 29-32, 

Morwyck, Wm de, 32 

Mowbray, Rog. de, 61, 62 

Murdac, Hen., abp of York, 5,89, 15, 72 

Mustel, Rog., 18 and n., 20; Wm, 18, 20 

Nether Grange, 34, 41, 42n., 81 
Netley, C. abbey, 61n. 

Nevill, Sir Rob., 83, 89, 90 

New Grange, IIn., 15, 33 

New Lathe, grange, 34, 81 
Newcastle, Ralph de, a. of K., 48, 95 
Newhall, 17, 22, 26, 33,81, 92 
Newlay Bridge, 7, 16 

Newminster, C. abbey, 2, 3, 60 
Nicholas, Pope, Taxation of (1291), 74 
Nigel, freeman of Horsforth, 19 
Norman, lay-bro. of K., 34 

IN@eth, J: We, -Col, viii 
Northampton, 23 

Northcrofts, 22 

Northives, Wm, m. of K., 89 
Norwich, bp of, 22 

Nostell, Aug. priory, I, 17 

obedientary system, $1 

Oldfield (Aldfield), 10; grange, 33, 38, 41 

Osmondthorpe, 17, 37 

Otley, 50, 89 

Owthorne, ch., 74 

Oxford, 57; Bodleian Library, 56; Corpus 
Christi Coll., 56; St Bernard’s Coll., $7 

Oxgill, 13 

Pakenham, Rob., 92 

parliament, 29, 31, 79 

Patent Rolls, 64 

Paull, <ch:, 74 

Paver, Bernard, 91; Ric., 91 

Paynel, Win de, 1ov., 18, 19, 26 

Paynel fee, 18-19, 35 

Peitevin, family, 15; Alex. de, 15; Reg. de, 
20; Thos de, 15; Wim de, 7,°6 and n., 10, 
£5, 25,20 

Pepper, Joh., 85; Thos, s. of Joh., m. of K., 
83, 85, 88, 89, 90 

Peter, lay-bro., 34 

Pickering, Dom. friar, 87 

Pikedelawe, 13 


Pilgrimage of Grace, 82, 85n., 87, 88 

Pistoia, 38 

Pistokis, Jas. de, wool-merchant, 38, 44 

Plucknett, T) PF. T.; 28 

Pontefract, Renier de, 41n. 

Pontefract, 17, 32, 41.,,44, $0) $1, 67, 85; 
87; castle, 84, 87; school, 2; seneschal, 16 

Pontigny, a. of, 77 

Potternewton, 16, 17, 48, 84 

Poulton, 3 

Poyd, Wm, 30 

Pratica della Mercatura (Pegolotti), 39 

Premonstratensians, 66 

Pudsey, 17, 26, 38, 91 

Quia Emptores, Statute of, 27, 32 

Ralph, a. of K., 96 

Ramsden, Wm, gI 

Rawdon, 19, 24 

Reinville, family, 16; Adam de, 16; Wm de 
(I), 16; Wm de (II), 16 

rents, see Kirkstall, abbey 

Revesby, C. abbey, 2 

Rewley, C. abbey, $7 

Richard I, king, 43, 65; Ric. II, king, 29, $4 

Richmond (Yorks.), 88; ch., 88 

Riddlesden, 37 

Rievaulx, C. abbey, 2, 40, 56.48) 76,478, 
93; a. of, 70, (Aalred), $2 

Ripley (Brown(e)), Joh., a. of K., 85, 87, 
88, 96 

Ripon, Joh., a. of Fountains, 69 

Ripon, 86 

Rivers, Met. of, lady of Harewood, 76 

Robert, a. of Fountains, 48, 53; lay-bro. of 
K., 34 

Rochdale, manor, 6 

Roche, Helias de, a: of'K., Ton; 20,48, ag, 
62, 63, 67, 95 

Roche, C> abbey, 2, 48,58; a: of, 78 

Roches, Pets dé, bp; 61n: 

Rodley, 92 

Roger, abp of York, 9; pr. of York, 19 

Romeyn, Joh. le, abp of York, 71, 72 

Rookes, Ric. 3228 Wim, 32 

Rothelay, Thos de, 64 

Roundhay, vill, 10, 15, 17, 37, 44; grange, 
13, 335 36, Park va 

Roydes Hall, 32 

Rufford, C. abbey, 2 

Rushton, Rob. de, 73 

Rushton (Riston, Risseton), 17, 37, 41, 66; 
grange, 33 

Salterforth, 4 
Samson, Adam, 21- 
Sandal, vicar of, 50, 63 


Sandall, family, 85; Edw., m of K., 85n., 
88, 89 

Sandford, Joh., 92 

Savignac abbeys, 2, 3 

Savile, Baron, 92; Hen. of Banke, 56; Rob., 
$7 92: ‘Sir Hen. 87; 02; Viscount, 92 

Savoy, Hospital of the, 91 

Sawley (Salley), C. abbey, 2, 5, 70, 78, 88, 
Ol: 2. Of, 87 

Saylbes, Joh., 44 

Scarborough, 87 

schools, Beverley, 2; Pontefract, 2; York, 

Scot, Joh... 31 

Scots, 3,5, 45 

Seactott, 16, 17, 24, 35, 37, 38, 44 

Selby, B. abbey, 1 

Sergaunt, Thos, 50 

Serlo, m. of Fountains, 54; m. of K., 70, 78 

Services, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32; scutage, 26, 28; 
forinsec, 24n., 25; military, 23, 25; suit 
of court, 28 

Shadwell, 16, 17, 44 

Simon, @. of K., 95 

Skeckling, ch., 74 

Skipton, honour of, 5, 13 

Skyrack, 22 

Smaragdus, 56 

Smeaton, Alan de, 17 

Smeaton, 17 

Smuth, A. Hi 13; 2. B:, 82 

smithies, 36, 78, 83 and n. 

Snydale, Hugh de, 17 

Snydale; 17,21, 24,3°7,°07,-9%; grange, 17, 
23 and f., al, 42n. 

Somerville, Wm, 16, 35, 38 

Spofforth, 89; Joh. Wm of, $3 

Spyrard, Wm, 30, 32 

Stainton, 78 

Stamborn, Joh., m. of K., 55 

Standard, Battle of the, 3, 5 

Stanlaw, C. abbey, 68n. 

Stanley, C. abbey, 78 

Stapleton, family, 16, 17; Rob. de, 16; Wm 
dé; a. of K., 48, 96 

Stapleton, 17 

Stephen, king, 3, 4, 6, 9; lay-bro., 63 

Stirling, castle, 63 

Stockdale, Wm, a. of K., 96 

Stokton, Nich. de, 73 

St Patrick, Geof. de, 20 

Stutevill, Wm de, 25n. 

Sussex, e. of, 88, 92; Francés, sr of, 92 

Swineshead, C. abbey, 2 

Tadcaster, 89 

Talde, Bernard, 39, 44 

Tempest, family, 73; Ric. de, 72 
Templar, Knights, 17, 19, 75, 79 


Temple Newsam, 17 

Thame, a. of, 78 

Theolocus, a. of, 69 

Thirsk, Wm, a. of Fountains, 87 

Thomas, chancellor, 36 

Thornberg, Joh. de, a. of K., 76, 96; vicar of 
Sandal, 50, 63 

Thornton, Rob., a. of Fountains, 47, 69 

Thornton, 74 

Thorpe, see Bishopthorpe 

Thorpe, nr Knaresborough, 50 

Thurstan, abp of York, 2 

Tickhill, so 

Tintern, C. abbey, 57 

Dopehtte,-Johy, @. of K, $0, 67, 78,96 

Terrenton, Mica, de, 52. 71, 72 

Toulouse, Emma de, 17 

Toulston, Hugh de, 17 

Turgisius, a. of K., 48, 49, 69, 79, 95 

Upper Hoyland, 70, 78 
Ushaw, St Cuthbert’s Coll., 56 

Valor Ecclesiasticus, 85 
Vavasour, Hugh, 26 

Walter, a. of K (¢1231-33), 05; aof-K. 
(1314), 71, 96; bp of Coventry and Lich- 
field, 75; lay-bro. of K., 49 

Walter, Fen, 16; Rob., 24 

wapentake, court, 22; fine, 83 

Warden, C. abbey, 2 

Watson, Jennett, 32 

Waverley, C. abbey, 1, 58, 78 

Webster, Wm, 30, 32 

Weetwood, 36, 83, 89, 91 

Wentbridge, 67 

West Armley, 28 

West Burdon, 18 

West Headingley, 7, 15, 81 

Westminster, 27, 63 

Wetecroft, Ric. de, 22 

Wetecroft, 21, 22, 26 

Wether Grange, 81 

Wetherby, so 

Whalley, ‘C. abbey, 60, 78, 88; a. of, 87 

Wharfe, river, 35 

Wheathead (Weethead), 13 

Whitby, B. abbey, 1 

Wigton, 22 

William,-a-0f K., 77; s. of Alex..'15 

Winchester, bp of, 61 

Withernsea, 78 

Wolf, Reynold, 92 

Woodward, G. W. O., 82, 86, 90 

wool, 37, 39, 40, 45; -merchants, 38, 39; 
-trade, 38 

Wortley, 30 

Wyke, 38 

Wymberslay, Thos, a. of K., 96 


Yeadon, 30 

York, Wm of, m. of K., 71 

York, I, 2, 10, 11, 21) 23, 30,.32,740n..50, 
75, 76, 83, 87, 89, 91; abps of, see under 
individual names (Bayeux, Thos of; 
Bowet, Hen.; Corbridge, Thos of; 
Giffard, Walter de; Greenfield, Wm; 
Kempe, Joh.; Murdac, Hen.; Roger; 
Thurstan; Romeyn, Joh. de; Zouche, 
Win wde da); deam and ichaptery. 75; 


diocese, 75; Holy Trinity Priory, 1, 18, 
$15 75s.<79» "86, 91; Micklegate,519; 
province, 75; St Leonard’s Hospital, 19, 
50 and n., 75, 92; St Mary’s Abbey, 1, 2, 
5, 54, 79; school, 1; sheriff, 53 

Yorkshire, 3, 6.18, 44, 45, $0%58,)64, 74, 
$2, 87 

Zouche, Wm de la, abp of York, 73 

_ +i ‘ a 
a oe ; : 
— =; a 
Nar = wo  % 
‘ oe aw , 

2 a s,, S ‘ : 
wane £ espe eas = 

a Sonden)' ee eee aie, 

= Corre 



“ oil